Registrar wants to perform special audit

[Slickpick]

We had our IATF surveillance audit this year (over a month ago). We received zero non-conformities during the audit. Our auditor was highly pleased with the QMS.

We recently received a message stating that we need to undergo a "special audit" for one particular process as the "reviewer claims lack of evidence from the last audit".

Has anyone heard of this before?

 

[Golfman25]

We had our IATF surveillance audit this year (over a month ago). We received zero non-conformities during the audit. Our auditor was highly pleased with the QMS.

We recently received a message stating that we need to undergo a "special audit" for one particular process as the "reviewer claims lack of evidence from the last audit".

Has anyone heard of this before?

So their assigned auditor didn't do a complete job, and now they want a second bite at the apple? Probably part of their audit contract. But I would probably push back hard and ask for detailed specifics. Also make sure it's their dime, not yours.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Has anyone heard of this before?

As someone who worked for many years with one of the global certification bodies, I can tell you this: very likely this in response to some write up they (the CB) had and they have to react. The auditor in question seems not to be very competent either.

You can and should complain about the additional disruption and you can demand that this extra audit should be at NO COST to you since you have no fault on what happened.

Good luck.

 

[UncleFester]

I'm always wary of any CB surveillance audit that concludes with zero N/Cs - it either suggests lack of depth by the auditor, or lack of time planning. Zero N/Cs also add no value to the audit process. However, in this case it looks like the reviewer isn't confident that there was sufficient depth to this 'one process' and that a special audit is conducted. I'd question the reasons and make clear that this would not be of cost to your organisation.

 

[gakiss2]

I have been known to nudge the auditor toward writing up a findings report on a topic I knew I was going to work on anyway when I sense an audit coming up empty. The fact that there were no findings could well have been the trigger for the CB to question this audit more closely in the first place.

 

[Randy]

I'm always wary of any CB surveillance audit that concludes with zero N/Cs - it either suggests lack of depth by the auditor, or lack of time planning. Zero N/Cs also add no value to the audit process.

Well that's where you're wrong.

No NC's "within the scope and sampling" of the audit could be indictive that the organization has "effectively implemented and maintained" its QMS. A vast majority of NC's I see are a load of meaningless POS that do nothing but excite, entertain and engage.

 

[gakiss2]

I'm with Uncle Fester. You've already paid the guy/gal (Auditor) , why not get something out of it. With a little auditor steering you could even end up with the Nonconformance you were hoping for. It is precisely because (IMHO) "a vast majority of NC's are a load of ... " that one shouldn't take them overly seriously. I will say, however, that the mood changes when the auditor is piling up NC's right and left. That's when we need Randy on our side.

 

[Golfman25]

I'm always wary of any CB surveillance audit that concludes with zero N/Cs - it either suggests lack of depth by the auditor, or lack of time planning. Zero N/Cs also add no value to the audit process. However, in this case it looks like the reviewer isn't confident that there was sufficient depth to this 'one process' and that a special audit is conducted. I'd question the reasons and make clear that this would not be of cost to your organisation.

Baloney. Bogus N/Cs add no value to the audit process -- in fact they add negative value. I always classify any non-conformances as substantive and non-substantive. We see more non-substantive NC and they are basically a waste of time.

 

[Slickpick]

We received additional feedback - the registrar is saying (without directly saying...) that they dropped the ball - they will perform the audit at no cost to our organization.

In my opinion - I am getting the feeling that this "special audit" isn't really due to lack of evidence, but because someone at the registrar did not like the fact we did not get any NC's... The registrar claims that this process must be audited to "ensure all processes are covered within the audit cycle" - however, this particular process was already audited during the first year of the cycle (which we received a minor NC)...

 

[Michael_M]

We received additional feedback - the registrar is saying (without directly saying...) that they dropped the ball - they will perform the audit at no cost to our organization.

The cynic in me is wondering if you are located in a good vacation spot and someone at the registrar wants to go on vacation.