During our last surveillance audit, the auditor issued a nonconformity in Contract Review. Orders are reviewed and entered through our Customer Service Department at the main office. Once an order is entered into the system, it is considered accepted per our procedure. Released orders are transmitted via the computer system to the remote factory location. A clerk at the remote site generates a report of weekly and/or daily orders. She reviews the order information for type of product ordered and passes it on to the factory floor. If an amendment is necessary, the clerk notifies the Customer Service originator who contacts the customer. Keep in mind; originally the Customer Service Representative reviewed capacity, inventory, delivery, etc. prior to accepting and entering the customer order.
At the remote factory, the auditor interviewed the clerk who generated, reviewed the types of product ordered, and passed the orders to the factory floor. During the interview the clerk told him about her job. The auditor stated that she was performing contract review and issued a finding. I am confused with regard to this finding. I should add that I was not at the remote site during the interview therefore could not ask the auditor for more detail about the finding. I understand the ISO standard and have reviewed ISO 8402. In 8402, there is a note #2 that reads contract review may be repeated at different phases of the contract as needed. Could this note be the reason for the finding? Any comments or information would be helpful.

What type of finding was it? Did the person doing the checking of the orders have the proper job description?

The finding was against element 3, contract review. The person audited was a member of the material planning area. We state in our procedures and instructions for element 9 that a material planner/scheduler will review production and shop orders with regard to manufacturing planning and production. However, all customer orders/contracts are reviewed prior to acceptance and upon acceptance entered into the computer system by customer service.

It seems to me that the auditor went alittle overboard.

It sounds to me, also, like you are performing quite adequate reviews. You may want to challange your assessor.

Originally posted by Linda Jurasin:
If an amendment is necessary, the clerk notifies the Customer Service originator who contacts the customer.

That does sound like Contract Review to me.

However, I'm not certain where the finding comes from. You do have a procedure dealing with the clerk's job, and the clerk is following it.

Only possible finding could be no evidence of the clerk's reviews.

AJP