Gap review support

About gap review support

Review implementation gaps and turn them into owned preparation actions.

BRCGS operates food-safety certification standards and related assessment arrangements. A food-site enquiry needs to identify the relevant standard, product activities and assessment scope rather than treating BRC as a generic document. The buyer’s requirement and the current scheme instructions should be considered before the audit is planned.

For gap review support, agree the product, activity, application or record involved and the working output. Focus the preparation on the information needed at this stage, with clear evidence references and an understandable handover for the person continuing the work.

When this support is useful

Food businesses preparing for an applicable BRCGS assessment or reviewing a customer requirement can explore documentation and readiness support. Confirm the current standard, site activities and certification-body arrangements.

This subservice can be discussed when the business has reached the relevant stage, received a request for information or identified a gap it cannot resolve from its existing records. Start with the actual request and explain what work has already been completed. That avoids both duplicating earlier preparation and overlooking an unresolved dependency.

BRCGS certification is separate from food-business licensing and does not replace every market or regulatory requirement. The selected approved certification body conducts its assessment and determines certification.

The starting information for this work

The task-specific inputs are: Relevant requirements, current evidence and previous findings.

Identify the current version of each input and the person who can confirm it. Keep the original requirement alongside any summary. Where an input has not yet been verified, mark that point clearly so the preparation does not convert an assumption into an application statement.

• Site, product and process descriptions
• The applicable standard and customer requirement
• Available food-safety plans and supporting procedures
• Supplier, production, hygiene and monitoring records
• Traceability, complaint and corrective-action information
• Previous audit reports and certification-body correspondence

How the work is organised

1. Describe each gap precisely.

   Begin with the relevant source record and the scope agreed with the applicant. Record the fact being checked and identify what would establish it, rather than relying only on a title or a previous file name.

2. Assign responsible people.

   Compare the related information as a connected set. A change to one attachment can affect a product description, application field or evidence reference elsewhere, so keep those relationships visible.

3. Identify evidence needed to demonstrate closure.

   Retain the reviewed result and any question that remains open. Identify the next owner and the evidence needed before the applicant treats the work as ready for the next stage.

The steps should be agreed with the business and adapted to the actual record or product. Where a question requires a technical, regulatory or other professional conclusion, the preparation should identify the appropriate reviewer. Administrative organisation and professional assessment remain different responsibilities.

Evidence and consistency checks

Use this wider service context to check whether the task-specific records remain coherent. For example, names, models, locations and reporting periods should be understandable across related files. If they differ for a valid reason, explain the relationship with the applicant and keep the source evidence accessible.

The working output and its handover

A gap-and-action register for the site.

A useful handover identifies what was reviewed, the version or date, the evidence references and the outstanding questions. It should also identify the next responsible person. That allows another team member or an external reviewer to continue the work without reconstructing the preparation history from scattered messages.

An organised output is not a substitute for the relevant external decision. Where the next step is a submission, test, assessment or professional review, agree who authorises it and which reviewed information will be used. Keep the acknowledgement or response with the same record.

Why careful preparation matters

• A clearer preparation plan tied to the site’s food activities.
• Better links between written methods and operating evidence.
• An organised gap-and-action record before assessment.
• More effective coordination of audit questions and follow-up.

For this subservice, judge the preparation by how clearly it resolves the task and supports the next decision. An output that still contains unexplained identity or scope differences can create avoidable questions later, even if the folder appears complete. The practical aim is a record that the business can understand and stand behind.

An illustrative working example

A food manufacturer has written procedures but scattered production records. The team follows one product batch through incoming material, processing and dispatch information. It checks whether the described controls can be demonstrated and records gaps for action. The exercise is a readiness review, not a substitute for the certification-body audit.

At the gap review support stage, the team would focus on this question: Does the action address the underlying issue rather than only replace a document? The evidence for the answer should be recorded in the working output, with any unresolved point assigned to a person rather than silently treated as settled.

Common issues and the final review

• Treating a purchased manual as evidence of an implemented system.
• Assuming an earlier standard issue is appropriate without checking current arrangements.
• Leaving corrective actions without evidence of implementation or review.

The task-specific review question is: Does the action address the underlying issue rather than only replace a document?

Separate a missing document from an unsupported claim and from a technical question. These need different actions. Obtaining a file may resolve the first; correcting the statement or obtaining competent review may be necessary for the others. Keep those actions visible until the responsible person has reviewed the result.

After this stage is completed

Maintain the food-safety system and follow the certification body’s audit and change-notification arrangements. New products, processes or significant site changes should be reviewed against the scope.

Retain the task output with the source information, reviewed version and relevant correspondence. If the underlying business facts change before the next submission or assessment, check the effect on the prepared material rather than assuming the earlier result still applies.

Discuss your requirement with TenderCert

Start with the outcome you need and the evidence you already hold. Bring the exact buyer clause, authority request or assessment enquiry where available, together with a short description of the product, activity or site. This makes the conversation more useful than asking for an unspecified certificate.

TenderCert’s consultancy scope can then identify the preparation and coordination tasks to discuss, the person responsible for each input and the questions for the relevant decision-maker. The applicant should review information and declarations before any external submission. Keep the final reviewed version and the acknowledgement together so later follow-up begins from the same record.

Common questions