Appeal of Nonconformance Finding

[Golfman25]

So what are the rules with regard to appeals. I had to appeal 2 findings from a recent audit. Asked my account manager at the CB several times for the appeal procedure and got the run around. Since google is my friend, I was able to find the CB's form online with a generic email address. Filled out the form, sent to the email address and got a confirmation of receipt and assignment to a reviewer. And then crickets. They give an estimate of 14 days to respond, and we are past that at this point. I'll eventually follow up with the contact, but wondering what to expect from this.

These where kind of slam dunk appeals IMO, so the extended response time has me concerned. In both cases the auditor took a leap and made up requirements where the standard clearly gives us discretion to set our own requirements. Can they "rework" the finding to make it legit? They say their decision is "final." Is there any way to challenge that? Would I get an explanation of the decision, or just a yes/no? How long should this take?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy]

Just go straight to ANAB and file a written complaint

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Just go straight to ANAB and file a written complaint

That is bad advice. One should NEVER escalate the issue to an external party, until you exhaust the channels in that relationship.
The easiest way to grab a CB’s attention is simply sending them a formal correspondence letting them know that their invoices will remain unpaid until you hear from their appeal reviewer.

 

[jmech]

In my experience (dealing with APIQR as the CB; other CBs are likely different), the appeal process seemed quite informal. We just wrote the appeals in the finding response area and they got processed at the same time as the other finding responses. Most were accepted (although not quickly); for the ones that were rejected, we didn't attempt to appeal further. I don't think we received any explanation of the appeals that were accepted and we only received a very basic (i.e. one short sentence) explanation for those that were rejected.

You can appeal to the CB's accreditation body (AB), but I agree with Sidney that this should not be done unless you've exhausted all options with the CB. If you appeal to the AB to early, they might reject your appeal on the grounds that you haven't yet completed the CB's appeal process (and you're likely to annoy the CB).

The CB is not supposed to "rework" the finding to make it legit, but they might do it anyway. If that happens, you have to decide if it's worth fighting - if it identifies a real problem, then it's probably not worth fighting.

If you're not in a rush (i.e. because your certification could expire due to the delay in resolving this), then I'd wait to follow up.

 

[Randy]

Maybe so, but it appears that his CB DGAS

 

[Golfman25]

That is bad advice. One should NEVER escalate the issue to an external party, until you exhaust the channels in that relationship.
The easiest way to grab a CB’s attention is simply sending them a formal correspondence letting them know that their invoices will remain unpaid until you hear from their appeal reviewer.

Yeah, we'll be having that discussion later.

 

[Golfman25]

In my experience (dealing with APIQR as the CB; other CBs are likely different), the appeal process seemed quite informal. We just wrote the appeals in the finding response area and they got processed at the same time as the other finding responses. Most were accepted (although not quickly); for the ones that were rejected, we didn't attempt to appeal further. I don't think we received any explanation of the appeals that were accepted and we only received a very basic (i.e. one short sentence) explanation for those that were rejected.

That's what I am afraid of. I already don't like the very basic explanation of their findings. I would like more than 1 sentence if they want to uphold the finding. I would hope they'll provide some basis, some argument, and some connection between the standard and the finding.

 

[Golfman25]

Well as I suspected both of my appeals were rejected.

The first was under 7.5.1 and 7.5.3 because we didn't have a work instruction for a simple task. Their response: "Although the client is correct in the verbiage of the clause, the word “determined” is key in this clause. How is it determined which tasks require a work instruction to be necessary or not? Where in the client's procedures was it determined and documented that this particular task does not need a set of work instructions?"

So if I am reading this one right, I have to document that I don't need a document? What the hell.

The second was under 8.5.1 because there were small local use containers of oil without labels. Their response: "Sub-clause g is the highlighted part of clause 8.5.1 indicating labeling and proper storage should have been implemented to prevent human error."

Who gets to determine the applicability of the subclauses a-h, the organization or the CB? They seem to imply that there is potential for human error if the "wrong" oil is used. What if it doesn't really matter and/or the potential "error" is low risk in that has no effect on the production of the part?

I am at a loss at this point. It's just not worth it. Very close to tearing up the cert. and starting over with another CB.

 

[jmech]

Those are very poor responses that they gave to your appeals.

For the first item, 7.5.1 requires you to "document the information determined by the organization as being necessary"; it does not require any documentation of how it is determined which tasks require a work instruction or any documentation that documentation is not necessary.

For the second item, the organization is required to implement actions to prevent human error (as applicable). If your organization implements such actions (as applicable), then you conform. It is not the auditor's place to invent a requirement for how you specifically need to meet this requirement.

If I was in your position, I would be tempted to continue appealing, but realize that it is probably not worth the cost (and the AB is not likely to be more reasonable than the CB). The more pragmatic path is just to implement corrective actions to satisfy the CB enough to close the findings (regardless if the findings and corrective actions are both garbage) and then start the process of transitioning to a new CB.

 

[Tagin]

The second was under 8.5.1 because there were small local use containers of oil without labels. Their response: "Sub-clause g is the highlighted part of clause 8.5.1 indicating labeling and proper storage should have been implemented to prevent human error."

At first glance, I think this could be a reasonable NC, unless you can show otherwise. E.g., "there is only 1 oil type available on the premise to fill these containers and the person(s) responsible for filling them can therefore only fill from that 1 drum/nozzle/etc." It would seem to depend on the criticality of that specific oil to the process, and the potential for "wrong oil" to be used. (Indeed, since it is not labeled, the container could be used to hold coffee, varnish, paint, hand soap, etc.!)

Who gets to determine the applicability of the subclauses a-h, the organization or the CB? They seem to imply that there is potential for human error if the "wrong" oil is used. What if it doesn't really matter and/or the potential "error" is low risk in that has no effect on the production of the part?

TS9002:2016 8.5.1g doesn't really help much here, as it simply states "g) the organization should take actions to prevent human error such as..." There is no qualifier. However, for 8.5.1 overall, it does state "The organization should consider the full cycle of production and service provision when determining what needs to be controlled...", which implies that for sub-clauses a-h it is within the discretion of the organization to make that determination.

So, after all that, if there is no history of nonconforming product or failed machinery/processes related to using "wrong oil", then it would seem this is a contestable NC. At the same time, labeling containers at work stations on the floor seems to me a good practice, with low cost/effort to implement and maintain, even if the risk is considered low.

So, if this was the only NC I could see accepting it. But since there is a pattern of overreach by the CB, then I can see why you appealed it.