Having an active discussion with my material planner about this clause in ISO (7.5.4). She documents the results of her daily cycle counts of stock room inventory. She has an agreement (documented in an email) with our government representative that as long as our monthly cycle count accuracy remains at 95% or higher we do not have to notify him of lost or damaged property. Seems weird to me but could I consider this as a customer contract detail that supercedes this clause?

This government representative is your customer? Your only customer? I'd say it totally depends on what your industry is. And, what your stockroom inventory is...here a stockroom inventory would not be product, but things like gloves, other PPE, parts for maintenance all the way down to paper towels etc, not product for sale. So, if you stockroom inventory is customer owned property, and you only have the one customer, and that is his agreement/requirement OK. Just make sure that it is spelled out contractually.

Having an active discussion with my material planner about this clause in ISO (7.5.4). She documents the results of her daily cycle counts of stock room inventory. She has an agreement (documented in an email) with our government representative that as long as our monthly cycle count accuracy remains at 95% or higher we do not have to notify him of lost or damaged property. Seems weird to me but could I consider this as a customer contract detail that supercedes this clause?

Here's a partial picture of what you are talking about (the total came to about $2.3 million of unaccounted for Government property or roughly a 5% loss)

As a former logistics contractor with the better part of 20 years in the business and lots of time dealing the GCA and the "officials" I'll say this...If it ain't in writing, it don't exist and never trust the civil servant at his word....Memories are short and jail terms are longer.

BINGO...Randy in form.


Regards,

Arin

That's fine as long as it is intruction given by your customer. What you need to do is keep the email as your record

That's fine as long as it is intruction given by your customer. What you need to do is keep the email as your record

You apparently have never worked with the US Government and the government personnel with contract oversight. The email is meaningless especially if the offical doesn't have the authority to make these type of decisions but is trying to exercise it anyway.

This sounds like a GS9/11 making GS13, GM or SES decisions, or one that would be handled by the Contractining officer or a COR if designated

You apparently have never worked with the US Government and the government personnel with contract oversight. The email is meaningless especially if the offical doesn't have the authority to make these type of decisions but is trying to exercise it anyway.

This sounds like a GS9/11 making GS13, GM or SES decisions, or one that would be handled by the Contractining officer or a COR if designated

Very good advice, and it extends beyond "government work" as far as email is concerned. It's not enough to get it in writing if the writing is done by someone who lacks the authority to make the decision.

Having an active discussion with my material planner about this clause in ISO (7.5.4). She documents the results of her daily cycle counts of stock room inventory. She has an agreement (documented in an email) with our government representative that as long as our monthly cycle count accuracy remains at 95% or higher we do not have to notify him of lost or damaged property. Seems weird to me but could I consider this as a customer contract detail that supercedes this clause?
The ISO clause never mentions about any percentage or PPM liverage that you may exercise in handling customer property. It is for you to define and respect mutually. As far as the e-mail is concerned Randy has hit the nail.
Usually when you handle customer property, sub-contracting norms are detailed and signed off by responsible officers from both sides. E-mail is surely not one such.
By the way, are you losing or damaging the 5% ? Whatever be it, you have work on hand both on the norms and your process / vigilance.....