VDA had replied to me today, but I was astounded by the fact that this person at the technical team had provided a false information to VDA to defend himself. He had told them that our parent company had other locations they support, so that was why he counted more than just 2 people for audit days??? This is not even an excuse!!! 
First, it's beyond surprising that the CB is telling a false information when confronted by VDA, and second, their excuse is not even correct either. If in fact what he said was 100% true and if we had several manufacturing sites, the CB is supposed to split the head count of support activity by the percentage of entire sites head count, so his logic is still going to be wrong because he cannot apply 100% head count of RL to one manufacturing location if there were multiple manufacturing locations.
I don't know what made of him to lie like that, but I replied to VDA that I couldn't understand why he would provide them such false information. Our parent company does have another subsidiary in China, but it's barely manufacturing, is not even ISO 9001 or ISO/TS 16949 certified, and they don't have any relationship with our location, and I don't understand why should they be considered in the scope ever (from the very beginning, I never mentioned that they were part of the scope).
On the other notes, VDA had told me that this person from technical team would contact me to explain 2 options from 5.5 of The Rule book, but he never contacted me. The customer relations manager who has been in touch with me sent me a audit schedule confirmation stating the audit dates and audit man-days to be 1.625 (1.5 days + 1 hour documentation review), which was originally on the contract. They apparently decided to stick with the original contract, probably for the fact because there would be a breach of contract if they didn't, and for the fact that I told them that if they were doing 2.5-day audit we were not going to pay for the extra 1 day because it wasn't on the contract and they should eat the cost, and for the fact that his decision of 2.5-day audit could not be justified in any way per The Rules book and because I contacted VDA. I don't think he can explain why 2.5-day audit is necessary based on The Rules book, and because of this reason, I don't anticipate him to contact me to explain and justify his position.
I am just plain very disappointed by the way this CB is handling this matter. The more I get into this, the more I get doubtful of their capability. We must finish this audit first, but we'll be on our way to a different CB. We had enough of this.
But, I am glad that I could come here to get advice from people. If this was prior to April, 2016, I could have been stuck with loads of problems... I'm glad that this forum came back and that I found solutions...
First, it's beyond surprising that the CB is telling a false information when confronted by VDA, and second, their excuse is not even correct either. If in fact what he said was 100% true and if we had several manufacturing sites, the CB is supposed to split the head count of support activity by the percentage of entire sites head count, so his logic is still going to be wrong because he cannot apply 100% head count of RL to one manufacturing location if there were multiple manufacturing locations.
I don't know what made of him to lie like that, but I replied to VDA that I couldn't understand why he would provide them such false information. Our parent company does have another subsidiary in China, but it's barely manufacturing, is not even ISO 9001 or ISO/TS 16949 certified, and they don't have any relationship with our location, and I don't understand why should they be considered in the scope ever (from the very beginning, I never mentioned that they were part of the scope).
On the other notes, VDA had told me that this person from technical team would contact me to explain 2 options from 5.5 of The Rule book, but he never contacted me. The customer relations manager who has been in touch with me sent me a audit schedule confirmation stating the audit dates and audit man-days to be 1.625 (1.5 days + 1 hour documentation review), which was originally on the contract. They apparently decided to stick with the original contract, probably for the fact because there would be a breach of contract if they didn't, and for the fact that I told them that if they were doing 2.5-day audit we were not going to pay for the extra 1 day because it wasn't on the contract and they should eat the cost, and for the fact that his decision of 2.5-day audit could not be justified in any way per The Rules book and because I contacted VDA. I don't think he can explain why 2.5-day audit is necessary based on The Rules book, and because of this reason, I don't anticipate him to contact me to explain and justify his position.
I am just plain very disappointed by the way this CB is handling this matter. The more I get into this, the more I get doubtful of their capability. We must finish this audit first, but we'll be on our way to a different CB. We had enough of this.
But, I am glad that I could come here to get advice from people. If this was prior to April, 2016, I could have been stuck with loads of problems... I'm glad that this forum came back and that I found solutions...
