Supplier On-Site Audit Checklist — Procedure & Record¶
1. Purpose & Scope¶
This checklist provides a structured framework for conducting on-site audits of paprika processing facilities. The audit evaluates the supplier's facility hygiene, processing controls, QC laboratory capability, storage conditions, and documentation practices. The goal is to verify that the supplier meets Dinweys' quality requirements and food safety standards before approval and during periodic re-audits.
Scope: All paprika processing facilities supplying Dinweys (Qingdao).Co.,Ltd., including whole-pod processors, drying/grinding facilities, and repacking operations.
Frequency: - New suppliers: On-site audit within 6 months of pre-qualification. - Approved suppliers: Re-audit every 24 months minimum. - High-risk or complaint-prone suppliers: Re-audit every 12 months.
2. Pre-Audit Requirements¶
Before the audit, the auditor must: 1. Review the completed Supplier Questionnaire and score. 2. Review the supplier's submitted COAs (minimum 3 batches). 3. Review any previous audit reports or complaint history. 4. Confirm audit date and agenda with the supplier. 5. Prepare PPE: hair net, lab coat, shoe covers, ear plugs (if needed). 6. Bring: audit checklist (printed), camera (permitted), thermometer, flashlight, inspection mirror.
3. Audit Sections — Score (1–5) per Check¶
Scoring Scale: - 5 = Excellent: Fully implemented, documented, and consistently applied - 4 = Good: Implemented with minor gaps - 3 = Satisfactory: Basic level, opportunities for improvement identified - 2 = Needs Improvement: Significant gaps requiring corrective action - 1 = Unsatisfactory: Not implemented or inadequate - N/A = Not applicable for this facility
3.1 Facility & Hygiene (Max 30 points)¶
| # | Check Item | Score (1–5) | Observations / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Cleanliness of receiving area — free of debris, dust, standing water | ||
| 1.2 | Separation of raw (dirty) zone vs dried/finished product zone | ||
| 1.3 | Physical barriers or air locks between hygiene zones | ||
| 1.4 | Pest control program — documented, with bait stations, insect traps, fumigation records | ||
| 1.5 | Hand washing stations available at all production entries (with soap, sanitizer, single-use towels) | ||
| 1.6 | Employee hygiene practices — hair nets, uniforms, no jewelry, glove use | ||
| 1.7 | Waste management — bins closed, emptied regularly, away from production | ||
| 1.8 | Drainage — floors sloped, drains clean, no standing water | ||
| 1.9 | Lighting adequate in all production areas | ||
| 1.10 | Ceiling/walls intact — no flaking paint, condensation, mold |
3.2 Processing Controls (Max 30 points)¶
| # | Check Item | Score (1–5) | Observations / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Drying equipment maintenance — documented schedule | ||
| 2.2 | Temperature monitoring during drying — logs available | ||
| 2.3 | Grinding equipment condition — clean, no contamination, documented maintenance | ||
| 2.4 | Metal detection or magnet installed ON the grinding line; tested daily | ||
| 2.5 | Sieving/screening equipment — meshes intact, no holes, verified | ||
| 2.6 | Cross-contamination control between different products (mild vs hot) | ||
| 2.7 | Cleaning between production runs — documented SOP | ||
| 2.8 | Equipment lubricants — food-grade only | ||
| 2.9 | Production line segregation for organic vs conventional (if applicable) | ||
| 2.10 | Foreign material control — magnets, sieves, visual inspection stations |
3.3 QC Laboratory (Max 30 points)¶
| # | Check Item | Score (1–5) | Observations / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Spectrophotometer present, calibrated, with calibration records | ||
| 3.2 | Moisture analyzer operational (halogen or oven) | ||
| 3.3 | Sieve analysis equipment — calibrated sieves, shaker | ||
| 3.4 | Microbiological testing capability (on-site or contracted) | ||
| 3.5 | Lab records — maintained, signed, dated, organized | ||
| 3.6 | Reference standards available (ASTA reference, pure acetone, etc.) | ||
| 3.7 | Lab equipment calibration schedule — followed and documented | ||
| 3.8 | COA format matches or exceeds required parameters | ||
| 3.9 | Retain sample storage — organized, accessible, labeled | ||
| 3.10 | QC staff training records — current |
3.4 Storage & Warehouse (Max 20 points)¶
| # | Check Item | Score (1–5) | Observations / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Warehouse clean, organized, free of pests and odors | ||
| 4.2 | Temperature and humidity monitored (daily logs) | ||
| 4.3 | Fumigation records — up to date, chemicals FDA/EU approved | ||
| 4.4 | FIFO/FEFO rotation — observed in practice | ||
| 4.5 | Pest monitoring devices — present, checked regularly, records maintained | ||
| 4.6 | Products stored off-floor on pallets, with adequate clearance from walls | ||
| 4.7 | Separation of raw materials from finished products | ||
| 4.8 | No chemical/pesticide storage near food products |
3.5 Documentation & Traceability (Max 15 points)¶
| # | Check Item | Score (1–5) | Observations / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | Batch records — complete, traceable from raw to finished product | ||
| 5.2 | COA records — complete for all batches shipped | ||
| 5.3 | Supplier COAs for raw materials received and reviewed | ||
| 5.4 | Staff training records — current, job-specific | ||
| 5.5 | Equipment calibration records — up to date |
4. Scoring Summary¶
| Section | Total Points Possible | Score Achieved | % Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Facility & Hygiene | 50 | ||
| 2. Processing Controls | 50 | ||
| 3. QC Laboratory | 50 | ||
| 4. Storage & Warehouse | 40 | ||
| 5. Documentation | 25 | ||
| Total | 215 |
5. Overall Rating & Decision¶
| Score Range | Rating | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| 194–215 (>90%) | 🟢 Excellent | Full approval. Re-audit in 24 months. |
| 161–193 (75–90%) | 🟡 Good | Conditional approval. Follow-up on findings (CAPA within 30 days). Re-audit in 12 months. |
| 108–160 (50–74%) | 🟠 Needs Improvement | Re-audit required within 60 days. No approval until score >75%. |
| <108 (<50%) | 🔴 Unacceptable | Not approved for supply. May re-apply after CAPA implementation and 12 months. |
6. Non-Conformance Register¶
| # | Finding | Section Ref | Severity (Critical/Major/Minor) | Required Action | Due Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Severity Definitions: - Critical: Immediate food safety risk (pest infestation, no metal detection, Salmonella history). Results in automatic FAIL. - Major: Significant QMS gap (no lab testing, no batch traceability, missing documentation). Requires CAPA before approval. - Minor: Improvement opportunity (partial records, minor housekeeping). Tracked for next audit.
7. Audit Summary & Final Comments¶
Auditor's Overall Assessment:
Supplier Response (optional):
8. Sign-Off¶
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead Auditor | |||
| Supplier Representative | |||
| Dinweys QC Manager (review) |
9. References¶
- Supplier Questionnaire — Pre-qualification form
- Supplier Scorecard — Ongoing evaluation
- CAPA Report — For non-conformance follow-up
- Glossary: Supplier Qualification
This document is part of the official technical documentation library for paprikabulk.com operated by Dinweys (Qingdao).Co.,Ltd. All rights reserved. For the latest version, visit paprikabulk.com.