Registrar Man Day (Manday) Fees

[Marc]

Subject: Re: Q: Registration Costs /.../Scalies/Marshall/Kohn
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:48:34 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion
From: Brian Charles Kohn

> From: Art Marshall
> This has been an interesting discussion. What is the cost per man per day.
> Lead Auditor.....
> Auditor(s).....

Many registrars don't charge different rates for different levels; they charge a specific rate and then staff the team as I've discussed previously. However, if specialized expertise is necessary, there may be a specific, higher rate charged for that particular resource. Also, if you request something specific, such as a consistent team visit-to-visit or facility-to- facility, then a higher rate may apply.

At least a couple of years ago, the daily rates varied from $750/day to $1800/day, with most registrars charging about $1000/day in the most competitive markets, $1400/day in less competitive markets.

Brian

Subject: Re: Q: Registration Costs /.../Scalies/Marshall/Scalies
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:50:03 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion
From: Charley Scalies

I have seen the range go from $1150 to $1700 per day, plus expenses for those auditors who are not local. $1300 per day is the rule of thumb I use for estimating purposes. There tend to be a few extras which you should look for, like application fees.

Charley

[Marc]

Also see http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000038.html

[Marc]

Another thought....

Subject: Re: Registration Costs /Scalies/Parker/Scalies/Dey
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:50:56 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion
From: Brian Charles Kohn

> From: Charley Scalies
> What was the registrars' quote? How many man days? Does it have the right to
> increase the number of days because you went over the imaginary line? The
> audit will "take" as long as they have.

It has been a while since I read the RvA accreditation regulations, but I distinctly recall them requiring us to add into all registration contracts the fact that days-quoted are estimates and the actual number of days will be based on the regulations. Regardless, the accreditation body will cite any registrar who fails to perform the audit as required by their regulations, even if that means that the registrar has to perform the extra days of auditing gratis.

Beyond that, regulations, and more importantly the professional ethics of the auditors, require that the audit takes as long as it NEEDS to take. This is in the CLIENT'S best interest, because otherwise the auditor is required to cite a major nonconformance, "Insufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance."

I remember reviewing an audit report for which the workpapers gave no indication of evidence to support an assertion of compliance for some of the audit items. The auditors indicated that client's personnel obstructed their ability to gather sufficient evidence in a timely manner, so they were unable to sufficiently audit all audit items. This was a QS-9000 audit, if I remember correctly, so that would mean it was even more glaringly obvious in the report. I had to reject the recommendation for registration.

The client hemmed and hawed and complained that it was the registrar's responsibility to find evidence of noncompliance or to grant registration. The fact of the matter is that that is totally false. The responsibility is not to find evidence of noncompliance but rather to find evidence of compliance. The absence of evidence of compliance is a noncompliance, and a major one at that. Furthermore, the responsibility is primarily on the part of the client, not the registrar. (I don't have my EN standards at my desk anymore, so I can't give you the precise standard and paragraph number.)

Asserting that a registrar will have to grant registration even though they didn't effectively complete the audit, for any reason, compromises the integrity of the system. The fact of the matter is that thousands of companies rely on this system to provide assurance, and the folks who work in this industry take the industry's integrity very seriously.

> I have been recommending to my customers that they inform quoting registrars
> that, if they want a shot at the business, they are well advised not to
> gild the lilly.

The way to address this most effectively is to prevent registrars from quoting anything other than day-rates.

Pat