1AIB Consolidated Standards for Inspection

Scoring

The scoring described in this booklet supersedes

all previous scoring methods used in all AIB

Standards pictured above in all languages

effective January 1, 2011.

September 2010

2IntroductionAIB International introduced the revised versions of its 11 Consoli-

dated Standards in 2009. This established a modern platform to support AIBs Inspection Program, and can be built upon to deliver continuous improvements in process and content that the evolving world food industry requires.

The scoring method described in this booklet, which becomes effective January 1, 2011, is one such an improvement and was driven by inde-pendent research of customer requirements that showed auditor consis-tency in scoring and report writing was critical to confidence in third party audit programs.

To this end, AIB developed a method to build greater consistency and reduce subjectivity in its scoring system, no matter the location or the audi-tor. The revised scoring method assigns point values for the severity and frequency of observations within each of the five inspection Categories.

The score earned on an inspection is the true measure of achieve-ment; however, AIB has for many years also awarded a laudatory termSuperior or Excellentthat described the score.

After much deliberation and customer consultation, AIB will continue to use laudatory terms, but will change the method by which they are awarded.

Only those facilities whose score falls within the top 25% of all scores will receive a Recognition of High AchievementSuperior award effec-tive January 1, 2011. A Recognition of Accomplishment document will be provided to all other facilities scoring between a passing score of 700 and the applicable Superior score.

There will be two groups determined by type of facility inspected. A statistical analysis will be conducted annually to establish the Superior baseline score for the following year. For 2011, the two rates will be 915 and 935. The two groups are:

AIB International believes these changes will reinforce the rigor of its Program and increase the confidence placed in it by thousands of custom-ers and facilities worldwide.

GROUP A: 915/1000 GROUP B: 935/1000

Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs Food Distribution Centers

Fresh Produce and Fruit Packinghouses Food Contact Packaging Manufacturing Facilities

Beverage Facilities Nonfood Contact Packaging Manufacturing Facilities

Fresh Cut Produce Agricultural Crops

Dairy Facilities

Retail Facilities

Grain Handling

31The Inspector observes operations on the facility floor to determine the effectiveness of programs, and reviews written programs to determine if there are gaps.

A risk assessment of observations is made for each Category:

Operational Methods and Per-sonnel Practices

Maintenance for Food Safety Cleaning Practices Integrated Pest Management Adequacy of Prerequisite and

Food Safety Programs

Risk Assessment Description Score Range

No Issues Noted No identified risk. 200

Minor Issues Noted No potential for contamination. 180-195

Improvement Needed A potential hazard, partial program omission, or food safety finding that is inconsistent with the Standards. If this hazard, omission, or finding is not cor-rected it could lead to program failure.

160-175

Serious A significant food safety risk or risk of program failure.

140-155

Unsatisfactory An imminent food safety hazard, program failure, or departure from the Good Manufacturing Practices.

135

2 The Inspector determines the most significant food safety observation(s) in each of the first 4 Categories. The Inspector then decides the severity of the most significant observation in each Category.Multiple observations in a Category will reduce the score in 5 point increments for each additional obser-vation. The score will not drop below the bottom of the Category score range.

Before the Inspector can assign the Total Score, the Adequacy of the Food Safety Programs must be assessed.

Assigning Adequacy scores involves comparing written food safety programs to the results they produce in the facility. It is impossible to receive a perfect Adequacy score unless the written programs result in perfect scores for each Category evaluated in the facility.

After the Adequacy score is deter-mined, it is added to the scores from the first four Categories to produce the total score.

5 Data from facilities that receive AIB inspections will be collected from Octo-ber 1 through September 30 each year and a statistical analysis of the data will determine the total score range for the top 25 percent of scores.This range will be the criteria for Recognition of High Achievement-Superior for the following calendar year.

Recognition of High AchievementSuperior will be awarded to facilities scoring within the statistically calculated to-tal score range. A facility cannot receive a Recognition of High AchievementSuperior if there is a category score below 160, irrespective of the total score.Recognition of Accomplishment will be awarded to all fa-cilities scoring between 700 and the required number of points to achieve a Recognition of High Achievement Superior. A facility cannot receive a Recognition of Accomplishment if there is a category score below 140, irrespective of the total score.

The Inspection

Determining Risk and Assigning Category Scores

Evaluating Adequacy

Recognition and Laudatory Terms

4Total Score

Scoring At-A-Glance

If the most significant ob-servation in the Category is severe, the category will be assigned a score at the bottom of the range. If the most significant observa-tion is not as severe, it will be assigned a score at the top of the range.

Scores are based on the definitions shown above.

32

1The InspectionLike a chain, the strength of a Food Safety Program depends on its weakest link.To assess the food safety risks in a facility, an AIB Inspector conducts a thorough and fair physical inspection and concludes with a review of written programs. The Inspector notes observations based on the five Categories of The AIB International Consolidated Standards for Inspec-tion:

1. Operational Methods and Personnel Practices

2. Maintenance for Food Safety

3. Cleaning Practices

4. Integrated Pest Management

5. Adequacy of Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs

Determining Risk andAssigning Category Scores

The AIB Inspector will then assign a level of risk and a Category Score to the five Categories shown above. Use Table 1 as a guide.

Table 1Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment Description Category Score Range

No Issues Observed No identified risk. 200

Minor Issues Noted No potential for contamina-tion. 180-195

Improvement Needed A potential hazard, partial program omission, or food safety finding that is inconsis-tent with the standards. If this hazard, omission, or finding is not corrected, it could lead to a program failure.

160-175

Serious A significant food safety risk or risk of program failure. 140-155

Unsatisfactory An imminent food safety hazard, program failure, or departure from the Good Manufacturing Practices.

135

4The Inspector uses a three-step process to assess risk. The inspector:

1. Determines the most significant observation(s) in a Category and assigns a score range.

2. Determines the severity of the most significant observation(s) and decides whether the initial score should be at the top or bottom of the score range assigned.

3. Lowers the initial score in 5 point increments for each additional observation if the assigned score is at the top of the score range.

The Inspector determines the most significant risk in a category and assigns it to the Minor Issues Noted score range.

The most significant observation is not as severe, and so would be rated at the top of the Category Score range.

The most signifi-cant observation is severe, and so would be rated at the bottom of the Category Score Range and cannot be further reduced.

Multiple occurrences of separate observations lower the score in increments of 5 until the lowest Cat-egory Score is reached.

180

195 -5190 -5185 -5180

Highest Category Score

Lowest Category Score

Figure 1Example of Risk and Category Score Determination in theMinor Issues Noted Range.

5Here are some guidelines:

The initial score for a Category is always either at the top or the bottom of the range.

A Category score can be adjusted from the top of the range, but will never go below the bottom of the range.

All critical or minor findings associated with a single Standard of a Category would be grouped together as a single observation. For example, any findings (single or multiple) noted under the follow-ing Standard and related requirements would only be counted as one observation:

1.5 Pallets1.5.1.11.5.2.11.5.2.2

Findings assigned to several Standards within a Category would be considered distinct and separate observations. For example, any findings (single or multiple) noted for each of the following Standards would be counted as 2 observations:

1.1 Rejection of Shipments1.3 Storage Conditions

A single observation in a Category may be severe enough to re-quire the category to be scored at the bottom of the score range. Severity can be due to a single significant observation, or it can be due to multiple findings establishing a pattern within a single observation.

Observations of Minor Requirements are always assessed in the Minor Issues Noted score range.

If the initial score is at the top of the assigned score range, each additional observation lowers the scores in 5 point increments. Possible scores are listed in Table 2.

# of Observations Category Scores for All Risk Assessments

Minor Issues Improvement Noted Needed Serious Unsatisfactory

1 195 175 155 135

2 190 170 150 130

3 185 165 145 125

4 180 160 140 120

5+ 180 160 140 115*

* Will be lowered an additional 5 points for additional observations.

Table 2Lowering an Initial Category Score for Multiple Observations

63

Worst RiskAssessment

Score Range for Worst RiskAssessment

MaximumAdequacy Score

Range

Minor Issues Noted 180-195 195

Improvement Needed 160-175 180-195

Serious 140-155 160-175

Unsatisfactory 135 140-155

Table 3Maximum Adequacy Score Range Based on Rule 2

Evaluating the Adequacy of theFood Safety Program

Evaluation of the written programs is not limited to determining if a written program and its records are in place and current. What the AIB Inspector sees in the facility determines whether or not the writ-ten Food Safety Programs actually work. A facility cannot have perfect programs if food safety observations are noted during the inspection.

The Inspector reviews the observations in the facility against the writ-ten programs to determine where the gaps in the program exist and what should be done to alleviate these conditions.

The score for the Adequacy Category is determined using the same method that is used for calculating the other four Category Scores. The Adequacy score, however, is also guided by four additional rules.

Rules to Determine the Adequacy ScoreRule 1The Adequacy Score cannot be the highest score. How can the programs that manage outcomes in the other categories be scored higher than the categories themselves?

Rule 2The Adequacy score can be no more than one Risk Assess-ment Category higher than the Category with the worst finding. In other words, if the worst Risk Assessment is Serious, how could the Adequacy section be said to have only minor issues with its operation? Again, this relates to how well the program functions in a facility. See Table 3.

754

Rule 3If the worst score is at the bottom of the score range, the Adequacy score can be no higher than the bottom category score, one level above. If observations require the score to be at the bottom of the category score range, this indicates that the related program is not effective.

Rule 4A 200 may only be assigned for Adequacy if the other four category scores are all assigned a 200; i.e., the only way it can be said that the programs are working perfectly is if there are no obser-vations to indicate otherwise.

Total ScoreThe total score is the sum of the points assigned to each Category: Operational Methods and Personnel Practices, Maintenance for Food Safety, Cleaning Practices, and Integrated Pest Management, but is not complete until aligned with the Adequacy of Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs because written programs drive the results from the other four categories.

Recognition and Laudatory TermsRecognition is based on the total score assigned to the facility.

Total scores will be collected from all facilities evaluated against the AIB Consolidated Standards for Inspection. Facilities will be grouped according to the specific standard. Data will be collected from October 1 through September 30 of each year.

A statistical analysis of the data will determine the total score range for the top 25 percent of scores.

This range will be the criteria for Recognition of High Achieve-mentSuperior for the following calendar year.

The awarded score range will change every year depending on the past years performance of AIB Internationals varied client base.

Table 4Maximum Adequacy Score Based on Rule 3

Worst RiskAssessment

Score of Worst Risk Assessment at

Lowest Number in the Score Range

MaximumAdequacy

Score

Minor Issues Noted 180 180

Improvement Needed 160 180

Serious 140 160

Unsatisfactory 135 140

8Recognition of High AchievementSuperior will be awarded to facilities scoring within a statistically calculated total score range. A facility cannot receive a Recognition of High AchievementSuperior if there is a category score below 160, irrespective of total score. If a facility scores within the Recognition of High AchievementSupe-rior range, but also has a category score below 160, the facility will receive a Recognition of Accomplishment.

Recognition of Accomplishment will be awarded to all facilities scoring between 700 and the required number of points to achieve a Recognition of High AchievementSuperior. A facility cannot receive a Recognition of Accomplishment if there is a category score below 140, irrespective of the total score.

The AIB International Recognition Document:

Recognizes that on the day of the inspection, the facility achieved a certain score according to the AIB International Consolidated Standards for Inspection.

Is not a certificate of compliance (such as an ISO certificate).

Does not have a specific expiration date.

Is labeled as announced or unannounced.

Defines which areas of the facility were included in the inspection.

9Sample Scoring with ExplanationsCategory Score

Range180-195 160-175 140-155 135

Category

#Minor Issues

NotedObservations

#Improvement

NeededObservations

#Serious

Observations

#Unsatisfactory Observations

Category Score

Operational Methods and Personnel Practices

6 0 0 0 180

Maintenance for Food Safety

8 3 0 0 165

Cleaning Practices

8 1 0 0 160

Integrated Pest Management

2 4 3 0 145

Adequacy of Prerequisite and FoodSafetyPrograms

0 3 0 0 165

Total Score 815

RecognitionRecognition of Accomplish-

ment

The Inspector noted 6 observations at the lowest risk of severity, but the Category Score does not go lower than the lowest possible score for the Minor Issues Noted Category (180).

Three observations are docu-mented. There were actually 5 observations, but 3 of the observa-tions were related to the same requirement in the Standard and were therefore grouped together as a single observation.

The severity of the single observation was significant so the score at the bottom of the score range (160) is assigned.

The Adequacy score is determined using the most constraining rules that apply:

The observation with the most significant risk is in the Improvement Needed category so the score should fall in the 160-175 range.

The most significant observation is not severe, so the initial score is 175. There are three separate observations, so 5 points are deducted for each additional observation beyond

the first (175 to 170 to 165). Rule 1: The highest score in the other 4 categories is 180, but that is outside the 160-175 range so Rule 1

does not apply. Rule 2: The lowest score in the other 4 categories is 145, so the Adequacy score can be no higher than the

160-175 range. Rule 3: The lowest category score (145) is not at the bottom of the range, so Rule 3 does not apply. Rule 4: The other 4 categories are not assigned a 200, so rule 4 does not apply.

The Serious observations that posed the most potential for contamination were at the lowest se-verity of risk, so the Category score begins with the first observation at 155. There were 2 additional observations, so the score was lowered by 5 points for each to 145.

10

Glossary of TermsCategoryThe AIB International Consolidated Standards for Inspection are

divided into five categories: Operational Methods and Personnel Practices, Maintenance for Food Safety, Cleaning Practices, Integrated Pest Manage-ment, and Adequacy of Prerequisite and Food Safety Programs.

Category Score RangeThe numerical range within which a category will be scored. The five category score ranges align with the five risk assessment categories and they are: No Issues Observed (200), Minor Issues Noted (180-195), Improvement Needed (160-175), Serious (140-155), or Unsatisfactory (135).

Category ScoreThe numerical score for each of the following categories: Operational Methods and Personnel Practices, Maintenance for Food Safety, Cleaning Practices, Integrated Pest Management, and Adequacy of Prerequi-site and Food Safety Programs.

FindingsNotes made by an inspector that are indexed to a Standard or related requirement. There may be multiple findings in an observation.

Initial Category ScoreThis is the first score assigned based on severity. The total number of single and separate observations may bring the initial cat-egory score down.

Multiple ObservationsFindings (single or multiple) noted under more than one Standard and related requirements. For example: All findings noted in 1.1 Rejection of Shipments and 1.3 Storage Conditions will be counted as 2 observations. An observation will be counted for each standard involved.

ProgramA collection of documentation related to the management of an ele-ment in a facility that impacts food safety.

RecognitionThe awarding of recognition based on total score. The recognition levels are: Recognition of High AchievementSuperior and Recognition of Ac-complishment. Previously, these levels of recognition were known as ratings and had the values of Superior, Excellent, Pass, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory.

Risk AssessmentThe categorization of observations in a facility into one of five categories: No Issues Observed, Minor Issues Noted, Improvement Needed, Serious, or Unsatisfactory.

SeverityThe level of risk within a risk assessment category (i.e., how severe is an observation within the risk category of Improvement Needed?).

Single ObservationFindings (single or multiple) noted under a single Stan-dard and related requirements. Example: All findings noted in Standard 1.5 Pallets or in any of its requirements (1.5.1.1, 1.5.2.1, 1.5.2.2) will be evalu-ated as one observation.

Total ScoreThe total of all category scores.

11

www.aibonline.orgauditservices@aibonline.org

Call AIB International World Headquarters1-785-537-4750 (1-800-633-5137)for international contact information

Automatic Assessment of Unsatisfactory The conditions for an automatic unsatisfactory remain as stated in the current standard that applies.