Complaint #20: Complaint Against SAAS Regarding
Accreditation Application Process
Details:
Slow accreditation application process by SAAS
Non-systematic in reviewing and accepting corrective action
plans by SAAS
Re-Accredited: May 2008
Certification Body: SGS
Details of Complaint:
SGS, an accredited Certification Body, complained that the
SAAS reaccreditation process was slow and not systematic in
reviewing corrective action plans and issuing the reaccreditation
certificate.
Actions Taken:
January 21, 2008: SAAS received a letter from SGS making a
formal complaint about the pace of the reaccreditation process
and the timeframe of the SAAS analysis of corrective actions
posed by SGS.
January 30, 2008: SAAS reviewed the SGS file for correspondence
and status of corrective actions.
February 11, 2008: SAAS followed-up with SGS regarding the
status of reaccreditation and proposed actions.
May 7, 2008: Reaccreditation decision approved and SGS notified.
May 12, 2008: Root cause analysis and corrective action identified
by SAAS.
May 30, 2008: Follow-up letter with results of investigation
and conclusion of complaint send to SGS.
Result:
SAAS acknowledges that the reaccreditation process for any
Certification Body may be lengthy, as was the case for SGS.
SAAS witnessed SGS in the field on two occasions and one time
in the office. As a result of these audits, nonconformities
were issued and the issues raised and number of CARs issued
were varied and complex. In addition, between September and
January 2007, SAAS experienced reduced staff capacity severely
restricted SAAS timeliness in ensuring CARs were properly
addressed.
The average length of time for the accreditation process
is 11 months – the amount of time that SGS was in the
application process was 11 months. The length of time that
SAAS takes in making accreditation decisions is necessary
to ensure proper accreditation audits and processes. SAAS
has worked to streamline the processes involved in managing
the reaccreditation audits and decision-making structure through
revision of its procedures and training of its auditors and
committees.
In addition to procedures revision and training and calibration
of auditors, staff and committee members, SAAS will be more
stringent in following up with accredited Certification Bodies
in requiring timely submission of corrective action plans
and evidence to close the CARs so that CARs are not allowed
to stay open past their due dates.
Conclusion: Complaint investigated, SGS nonconformities status
addressed, reaccreditation submitted and approved, root cause
analysis and corrective action identified and taken by SAAS.
|
