Corrective action against the auditing agency? Written contract is in error

[pwabbit]

We have an unusual problem. The agency that audits our system to AS9100B had given us a written contract which states that the follow-up audits are to last 1 1/2 days. Now they state that the written contract is in error and the audit must last for 2 days. The charges will be adjusted accordingly. Since we are dealing with a supplier under AS9100B which is unable to provide the product which complies with the contract, are we required to issue a corrective action to the auditing agency?

 

[Randy]

Re: Corrective action against the auditing agency?

It's not that unusual, but what is the gain? Apparently a mistake was found under the accreditation scheme requirements and they corrected it. You could protest and risk invalidating your registration because of not enough time being used for surveillances.

 

[Ted Schmitt]

An extra 1/2 day shouldn´t be a problem... but since they made the mistake in the contract, negotiate with them the extra charge for that 1/2 day... it should be free of charge (since the mistake was theirs)...

 

[Coury Ferguson]

I agree with Randy.

What is to gain for taking this type of action? The contract is corrected, the costs are based upon days, not partials, I believe.

If you feel that action is needed, then just negotiate pricing.

 

[pwabbit]

So corrective actions are only to be issued when there is something to be gained. I can live with that. Actually I kind of like that. It makes my job easier. Thanks for the help.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

As a representative of a Certification Body, I do believe that you MUST negotiate with your CB that the additional 1/2 day NOT to be charged to you. Otherwise, it will encourage them to keep this "bait & switch tactic", where they low ball the contract to entice you to sign with them, and then, they unilaterally decide to up the charges.

Obviously, it is up to your organization to decide what course of action to take next. But you could reach to the CB management and express that your organization should not have to pay for their mistakes.

 

[JHagani]

Just an observation,

If you had interviewed more than one certifying body, and compared costs, you should have noticed the difference in follow up audits days and associated costs.

The number of days for an audit is set up from a chart based on number of employees, and exclusions you take, not the CB choice. I really don't think a CB would intentionally quote you less time to get the contract.

If you had chosen another CB, you would have to pay him for two days anyway.

Sometimes its hard to believe that CBs are humans too, and can make mistakes.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The number of days for an audit is set up from a chart based on number of employees, and exclusions you take, not the CB choice. I really don't think a CB would intentionally quote you less time to get the contract.

Jim, the number of auditor-days is HIGHLY influenced by the CB. Some CB's are "willing" to low ball the auditor days and deviate much FURTHER from the "starting point" defined in the IAF table and additional tables (from AS9104, in this case).

As someone that has been in this business for almost 20 years, I can attest that, many times, the estimation of man-days for audits varies tremendously by CB.

 

[pwabbit]

The number of days for an audit is set up from a chart based on number of employees

This is in direct contradiction to what our CB is telling us. When the contract was originally negotiated, the CB stated that because we have only 16 employees and no design or servicing, we would only be subject to an 1 1/2 day surveillance annually. Now he is claiming that a full 2 days every 6 months is required. When asked about the reduced amount of days because of 16 employees, he stated that the amount of days is not dependent on how many employees a company has. He also noted that the frequency and number of days audited is not in the his control but is the sole decision of the individual auditor. When the auditor was asked, she said that frequency and number of days is the decision of the CB and not hers. What a strange web they weave.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

When asked about the reduced amount of days because of 16 employees, he stated that the amount of days is not dependent on how many employees a company has.

:mg:

He also noted that the frequency and number of days audited is not in the his control but is the sole decision of the individual auditor. When the auditor was asked, she said that frequency and number of days is the decision of the CB and not hers. What a strange web they weave.

If we needed more proof that the knowledge, professionalism and seriousness of CB's varies drastically.

ISO/IEC 17021 requires CBs to have processes in place to assess the competence of all it's personnel involved with certification activities <25. Declaration of Competence Based on Competence Analyses >
When the right hand does not know what the left one is doing, it gives you strong indication that something is going awry.