Hi,

Back again for help and/or opinions! Is there a need to create a "contract review" checklist or document? Right now what we have in place is whenever there is a new contract or supply agreement the affected departments get together and meet to discuss and outline any potential problems we see. Notes are kept and that is currently our contract review. I have been getting input from various sources we should have a standardized checklist/document to capture this information.

What is the group consensus - will the way we have been doing it pass muster with an auditor or should I create (unless someone has one to share) a contract review checklist?

Jeri

Jeri,

IMO it is whatever works for you. Depending on the situation, our contract review can be as simple as the salesperson looking at the order and deciding it is a repeat order for a recently made part in which case no one else need review it, or as complex as passing the order to several people with a checkoff sheet where they add comments or just sign-off that it is okay. As a CYA thing, we use a standard form as a record that CR was done, although sometimes only one person (sales) initials one line that says "repeat order". If you keep notes now, that to me would be the record or proof that it was done, but if it is a repeat order and no one makes any record of any kind an auditor might ding you on it. For me, the 1 piece of paper to make the simple CR form was worth it.

The main "pro" to checklist is that nothing gets forgotten. It also promotes consistency.

The main "con" is instills rigidity, and could prevent key items to be overlooked.

I recommendation is the use of a checklist with some standard items on it also a method to add other concerns that are not on the standard list.

I agree with both Mike and Dave.

Checklists are great and can also be used to assign responsibility for any action items that come out of that meeting, such as determining if the schedule can be met or getting a vendor quote, etc. It makes sure that nothing slips between the cracks and everyone knows who needs to do what. I created one for my last company and it significantly improved the capture and communication of information about the order.

Jeri,

I didn't in any way mean to say that your method of meeting to discuss contract review face-to-face has to stop! If you can do that in a timely manner with the right people this may be the best way to do it where issues can be discussed and hashed-out quickly. However, I would still do a CYA in the form of a 1 piece of paper contract review form for the reasons stated above by all. I'll bet you can make a good form in 15 minutes, run some copies, and you'll be in business in no time. Decide how long you wanna keep the review form for record retention issues while you're at it. We usually just stick it in the customer's sales folder and leave it there for as long as the folder is kept -- the easiest thing for us to do.

...this may be the best way to do it where issues can be discussed and hashed-out quickly...

I would still do a CYA in the form of a 1 piece of paper contract review form...

I agree a meeting format would be ideal, and I have companies that use the checklist as the agenda for the meeting (or roll the checklist into the agenda). The checklist or form then serves as your "evidence" of contract review and more importantly, accompanied with the minutes gives a glear record should any problems arise.

Does anyone have a good example of what one of these "simple" contract review forms looks like? I am struggling with a situation where the contract review form is multiple pages, and tried to cover every possible question.

a newbie, Kathleen Brown

Who says there has to be a form? If you want documented evidence of "contract review" why add extra paper?

I ran a Comm Shop in the Navy, and we stamped every message with a template for the Skipper to assign review. The Skipper would acknowledge the message and "check box" what dept. heads he wanted to acknowledge review. As I cleaned the message boards one on my jobs was to make sure each delegated dept. head had reviewed the message. (That wasn't mgt policy, that was my own...ensuring that at least monthly I saved one Dept Head's career!)

Cheers,
The Madfox
(CO signed in purple, ala Nero, XO in green.)

Does anyone have a good example of what one of these "simple" contract review forms looks like? I am struggling with a situation where the contract review form is multiple pages, and tried to cover every possible question.

a newbie, Kathleen Brown

Welcome Kathleen. :bigwave:

Madfox is correct when they states there is no need for a form (at least by ISO9001:2000) only requires that the requirements are reviewed, that there is communication and...(see paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3).

If you are looking for a simple form because it will work within your company's business structure, then look at the "Post Attachment List" above. I believe I posted one awhile ago.

I am assuming that the Contract/Purchase order has already been accepted by the Company and is not in the Quote Stage.

A simple Contract Review Form, if decided to use may want to include the following:

1. Contract/Purchase Order #

2. Customer's info (name, address and so on)

3. Date of review

4. Part Number

5. Qty

6. Due Date

7. Special requirements (Quality, Manufacturing, and so forth)

8. Standards/Specifications required

9. Signature of the person reviewing and date

The above is a simple way of documenting the Contract/Purchase Order review. You can go as deep as the company wants.

I am assuming that the Contract/Purchase order has already been accepted by the Company and is not in the Quote Stage.
If contract review is to be effective it has to take place before the contract is signed. It's a preventive measure that should be intended to make sure that the the terms of the contract are realistic and feasible. The AIAG APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning) manual has what's called the Team Feasibility Commitment that includes a one-page checklist of things to consider before entering into a contract.

If contract review is to be effective it has to take place before the contract is signed. It's a preventive measure that should be intended to make sure that the the terms of the contract are realistic and feasible. The AIAG APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning) manual has what's called the Team Feasibility Commitment that includes a one-page checklist of things to consider before entering into a contract.

I agree Jim. It should be performed at the quote Stage. After that, it becomes almost moot.

A possible reason to have it after receipt of the Contract would be to help shipping prior to shipping the product or Final Inspection if the company has a final inspection process. The requirements could be reviewed prior to shipping the product or performing the service. In my opinion.

if you truly feel you need a form....basically it should consist of everything that you enter into your "work"order. sizes, quantities, colors???? whatever you are producing will have its own characteristics, none of us can tell you what they are. But, why create yet another form when all this information will have to be put into your order system? That is just duplication of work. You can review off the purchase order, you can review off order entry, if you put one small stop in the process for review before you hit the final key that sends the order to your official "now it is an order" status.

A possible reason to have it after receipt of the Contract would be to help shipping prior to shipping the product or Final Inspection if the company has a final inspection process. The requirements could be reviewed prior to shipping the product or performing the service. In my opinion.

Sure--it's always a good idea to make sure everyone understands special requirements, and a good APQP process (beyond contract review) should include methods for disseminating that information and making sure it's understood. Whether this is considered a part of contract review or something that happens afterwards is inconsequential. As always, the importance lies in the act itself, and not in what the act is called.

It's me again! Does contract review mean something different if a company is certified to TS 16949? I just got a copy of the TS16949 specification, and will be reading it this weekend, so may be able to answer my own question. What is confusing me is that this company uses the term "contract review" to refer to a form that they use to begin the process of product development. I have only experienced its use in the past as the rest of you described- confirmation that there is an understanding of the customer's requirements, and your ability to meet them.

Kathleen Brown

It's me again! Does contract review mean something different if a company is certified to TS 16949? I just got a copy of the TS16949 specification, and will be reading it this weekend, so may be able to answer my own question. What is confusing me is that this company uses the term "contract review" to refer to a form that they use to begin the process of product development. I have only experienced its use in the past as the rest of you described- confirmation that there is an understanding of the customer's requirements, and your ability to meet them.

Kathleen Brown

Kathleen,

Maybe you could attach a copy of the form for review, as long as there is no copyright or company sensitive information. This might help everyone in providing you information on the use.

What is confusing me is that this company uses the term "contract review" to refer to a form that they use to begin the process of product development.
Do you mean your own company, or that of a supplier or customer? As has been suggested, the outset of the product development process might be too late, but it depends on the context and circumstances. If you could tell us a little more about your situation we can provide better advice.

I work here-
Here is how the system currently works. A customer requests a widget. It may be a catalogued item or a total new product design. A "contract review" form is filled out that includes information like "target price", "prototype date", "customer's part approval process", "customer's assigned part number", "technical specs", etc. etc. It is several pages long. This form goes to an APQP team that does all projects. The APQP team kicks the "contract review" back to the originator for more information until they are satisfied. They sign the feasibility commitment. The product development begins. That may be as simple as assigning a customer part number to a catalogued item or as complex as designing a vehicle's instrument cluster.
It seems the system is too complex for the simple transactions and too simple for the complex projects....

Kathleen Brown

Kathleen,

Bear with me on this, because I am trying to decipher each paragraph.

Here is how the system currently works. A customer requests a widget. It may be a catalogued item or a total new product design.

The customer orders a part which could be from the catalog, or it could need to be developed. That applies to the quote stage.

A "contract review" form is filled out that includes information like "target price", "prototype date", "customer's part approval process", "customer's assigned part number", "technical specs", etc. etc. It is several pages long.

This documents the requirements.

This form goes to an APQP team that does all projects. The APQP team kicks the "contract review" back to the originator for more information until they are satisfied. They sign the feasibility commitment. The product development begins.

The APQP team reviews the requirements. If not acceptable they return it to the initiator. If acceptable development starts.

I would feel that the APQP Team should be the ones to complete this form.

That may be as simple as assigning a customer part number to a catalogued item or as complex as designing a vehicle's instrument cluster.
It seems the system is too complex for the simple transactions and too simple for the complex projects....

Kathleen Brown

I am still lost on this one. It would be helpful if you could attach a copy of this document. Is this document part of the TS Standard, meaning was is furnished as part of the standard?

Maybe someone that has more expertise on TS could provide some insight.

I work here-
Here is how the system currently works. A customer requests a widget. It may be a catalogued item or a total new product design. A "contract review" form is filled out that includes information like "target price", "prototype date", "customer's part approval process", "customer's assigned part number", "technical specs", etc. etc. It is several pages long. This form goes to an APQP team that does all projects. The APQP team kicks the "contract review" back to the originator for more information until they are satisfied. They sign the feasibility commitment. The product development begins. That may be as simple as assigning a customer part number to a catalogued item or as complex as designing a vehicle's instrument cluster.
It seems the system is too complex for the simple transactions and too simple for the complex projects....

Kathleen Brown

It sounds like, (A) you might benefit from having two separate processes (a simpler one for the simple stuff) and (B) what your company is doing is fairly typical for automotive work.

That doesn't mean that it can't be improved, of course, but before you make any rash judgements, it might be helpful to "walk the process" and talk to people. You just might find that others feel the same way you do, but might need some reinforcement in order to get things changed.

Is this document part of the TS Standard, meaning was is furnished as part of the standard?

Maybe someone that has more expertise on TS could provide some insight.

No, the form itself isn't but its use might be mandated by individual customers. Insofar as the standard is concerned, 7.2.2 (the same as in ISO 9001-2000) is the source, and 16949 adds 7.2.2.1 that says that if the 7.2.2 requirements for formal review are waived, customer approval is required, and 7.2.2.2 which says,
The organization shall investigate, confirm and document the manufacturing feasibility of the proposed products in the contract review process, including risk analysis.
As with most of the standard, the writing is lousy; "including risk analysis" should have come after "feasibility of the proposed products."

In most companies, satisfaction of 7.2.2.2 is achieved with the forms in the APQP manual.