Nothing gets the owner's attention like a whopping big bill to replace everything that is noncompliant.
"But it is the way we always build it!"
Court cases are built around situations like this. The payouts can be very large when they include penalties for late delivery. If the payout is large enough the owner will sit up and take notice.
Unfortunately the mindset is that getting “caught with their pants down around their ankles” it simply a cost of doing business. The contractor pleads ignorance, begs for mercy, and gets away with the noncompliance 9 out of 10 times. The bottom line is the company made money in the grand scheme of things and they had a profitable year. The sales department gets a pat on the back and a bonus for a good year. Inspection/QC gets their ass handed to them because they “should have known.” Everything goes back to normal shortly thereafter.
Make sure you are not the one thrown under the bus. All correspondence to management should be in the form of an e-mail. Keep a daily diary of meetings and conversations, i.e., who said what. Keep a personal record for your purposes if you are made the scrape goat. It is amazing how quickly management gets selective amnesia when the crap hits the fan.
Best regards - Al
Just as a word to the wise, the food safety and modernization act signed into law Jan 2011 has a lot of screwy language in it. There are vague tiebacks lawyers are having fits with.
I would suggest some research in this for future work.
Example:
124 STAT. 3896 PUBLIC LAW 111–353—JAN. 4, 2011
‘‘(5) R
EVIEW
.—In promulgating the regulations under para-
graph (1)(A), the Secretary shall review regulatory hazard anal-
ysis and preventive control programs in existence on the date
of enactment of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act,
including the Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance to ensure
that such regulations are consistent, to the extent practicable,
with applicable domestic and internationally-recognized stand-
ards in existence on such date.
‘‘(o) D
EFINITIONS
.—For purposes of this section:
‘‘(1) C
RITICAL CONTROL POINT
.—The term ‘critical control
point’ means a point, step, or procedure in a food process
at which control can be applied and is essential to prevent
or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce such hazard to
an acceptable level.
‘‘(2) F
ACILITY
.—The term ‘facility’ means a domestic facility
or a foreign facility that is required to register under section
415.
‘‘(3) P
REVENTIVE CONTROLS
.—The term ‘preventive controls’
means those risk-based, reasonably appropriate procedures,
practices, and processes that a person knowledgeable about
the safe manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding of food
would employ to significantly minimize or prevent the hazards
identified under the hazard analysis conducted under sub-
section (b) and that are consistent with the current scientific
understanding of safe food manufacturing, processing, packing,
or holding at the time of the analysis. Those procedures, prac-
tices, and processes may include the following:
‘‘(A) Sanitation procedures for food contact surfaces
and utensils and food-contact surfaces of equipment.
‘‘(B) Supervisor, manager, and employee hygiene
training.
‘‘(C) An environmental monitoring program to verify
the effectiveness of pathogen controls in processes where
a food is exposed to a potential contaminant in the environ-
ment.
‘‘(D) A food allergen control program.
‘‘(E) A recall plan.
‘‘(F) Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs)
under part 110 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations
(or any successor regulations).
‘‘(G) Supplier verification activities that relate to the
safety of food.’’.
(b) G
UIDANCE
D
OCUMENT
.—The Secretary shall issue a guid-
ance document related to the regulations promulgated under sub-
section (b)(1) with respect to the hazard analysis and preventive
controls under section 418 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (as added by subsection (a)).
(c) R
ULEMAKING
.—
By the time you follow the rabbit down that hole, you find reams of grey area that can be interpreted as new federal mandates for food processing equipment.
Hi Stringer
If after you have clearly established that there was a code requirement in the tender and order documents, then I would approach this by way of Non Conformance Report. (NCR) On the NCR show the problems identified, and the proposals for remediation or acceptance on the basis of "fitness for purpose". If there is no legislative requirement for the code compliance, then the chances are good that the client will accept the equipment as long as your discussion shows that s/he will get equipment of good quality non-the-less. Also do your best to compile any documentation to highlight what has been done to prove that you have produced good quality equipment. (Especially that the equipment will have a long life.) In this process, please do not come across as being incensed that the client has the audacity to ask something that nobody else has. This approach will only back-fire on you! The approach is: "This is what I have done to assure you that the equipment is good for your purposes".
Following this "formal" approach not only shows the client that you have systems in place to deal with quality issues, and that you are not trying to hide any problems, but it will activate the client's quality system to evaluate your proposals from a more impartial point of view. If the client is to reject your proposals, then they will normally at least indicate why, which then again gives you a point from which to address their concerns. It would be rare to have a client come across as unreasonable on official quality documentation such as NCR's or TQ's.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Niekie
Forum
