What this is
What is a contractor audit follow up?
What is a contractor audit follow up?
A contractor audit follow up is a review carried out after a site or documentation audit to check whether the findings raised were actually closed. It does not repeat the audit; it verifies specific findings against evidence and records whether each one was closed for real.
Who carries out the follow up?
The contract owner, not the original auditor. Continuity of accountability for the contract matters more here than continuity of judgement across findings, because the follow up feeds approval decisions that sit with the contract owner.
How is it different from a second audit?
A second audit reassesses the whole scope again. A follow up is narrower: it takes the specific findings raised, checks each against the verification method appropriate to it, and closes or carries forward only those items. Running a full audit as the follow up mechanism is disproportionate and delays decisions that should be made quickly.
Scope
When is a contractor audit follow up required?
This follow up exists to verify findings raised by a specific prior audit, not to reassess the contractor generally or to substitute for the next scheduled audit.
Use this template when
- A site safety audit or documentation audit has been completed and raised findings with a closure date
- The stated window, 30 to 90 days, has been reached or a contractor has reported an action complete
- A finding has recurred and needs to be checked against what was reported closed previously
- The performance scorecard needs a current closure percentage before a renewal or award decision
- A linked record needs this one to exist: links vendor, audit, capa
Do not use it for
- Contractor Site Safety Audit, the original audit, which this record should not repeat; it verifies findings, it does not reassess the site.
- Contractor Documentation Audit, which checks records, permits and training evidence at its own interval, not as a substitute for closure verification.
- Contractor Suspension Record, the escalation instrument when a follow up shows unresolved or repeat findings.
- Contractor Performance Scorecard, which closure percentage feeds into but does not replace; it aggregates across engagements, this record verifies one audit.
- Anything outside KnowContractor, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 19011 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 19011 treats follow-up as a distinct stage of the audit process, not an afterthought, and is explicit that closure is a judgement about effectiveness rather than a status update.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 19011 cl.6.6 | Audit follow-up verifies that agreed corrective actions have been implemented and evaluates their effectiveness | Findings closed |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.5.6 | Audit findings are evaluated against the audit criteria and graded, with conclusions reached only once evidence has been reviewed | Findings closed |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.5.4 | Evidence collected during and after an audit should be verifiable; unverifiable statements should be identified as such | Findings closed |
| ISO 19011 cl.5.4.5 | The audit programme should account for the risk that a nonconformity remains unresolved, adjusting subsequent activity accordingly | Summary |
| Standard-specific (Annex SL cl.10.2) | Corrective action must address root cause, not just the reported symptom, before a nonconformity can be considered closed | Findings closed |
| ISO 19011 cl.6.7 | The audit report and its findings are retained as the reference point against which subsequent follow-up is conducted | Related records |
| ISO 19011 cl.7.2 | Auditors exercise professional judgement in weighing evidence, which follow-up verification depends on as much as the original audit did | Summary |
What it does not cover
- Contractor Site Safety Audit, which reassesses the contractor's work against site rules and method statement from scratch.
- Contractor Documentation Audit, which checks records, permits and training evidence, independent of any prior finding.
- Contractor Suspension Record, the instrument for acting on unresolved or repeat findings, not for recording that they exist.
- Contractor Performance Scorecard, which holds overall standing across engagements rather than one audit's closure position.
- The corrective action itself, which belongs in the CAPA record, not a description field on the follow up.
Global
Contractor Audit Follow Up requirements by country
No statute names an audit follow up. What sits behind it is the principle that raising a finding creates an obligation to check it was addressed, which shows up differently across regimes.
OSHA multi-employer worksite doctrine
A host employer that knew or should have known of a contractor-created hazard, and did not correct it, can carry citation exposure alongside the contractor.
An unverified finding removes the host's best evidence that it acted once it knew.
HSE guidance on managing contractors (INDG368 and related)
Client duties do not end at appointment; HSE expects ongoing monitoring proportionate to risk, including follow-up on identified issues.
A closed-on-paper finding with no verification is unlikely to satisfy an inspector examining how monitoring was carried out.
ISO 19011
Follow-up is a defined stage of the audit process, with effectiveness verification distinct from confirming that an action occurred.
Certification and second-party auditors will ask for the verification method used, not just the closure date recorded.
How to complete it
How to complete a contractor audit follow up, step by step
The template records a percentage. Whether that percentage means anything is a judgement the fields do not make for you.
A critical or major finding closed on statement only is barely different from an open finding; a site visit or record review is proportionate to what was at stake. An observation closed on the contractor's word is a reasonable use of a limited verification budget. Applying the same effort regardless of grade wastes it on the trivial findings and wastes trust on the serious ones.
Repeat Findings From Previous Audit is not just a count to report; a nonzero figure means a closure was previously recorded that was not real, which is evidence against the verification method used last time, not only against the contractor. Raise the verification strength for that finding type rather than repeating the same check.
Response On Time and Action Strength measure different things, and a contractor can score well on one and poorly on the other. A prompt response containing a reminder or reissue is not a strong outcome, and treating punctuality as a proxy for adequacy lets weak fixes through.
Contractor Responsiveness and Closure Percent can look acceptable in aggregate while one or two findings sit open past the review window for reasons that matter: expired competency, disputed root cause, access refused. Escalate on the worst unresolved item, not the overall rate.
What auditors find
Most common contractor audit follow up findings
These findings recur when the follow up is skipped, or completed as a formality.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Findings marked closed on the contractor's written response, no verification method recorded. | ISO 19011 cl.6.5.4 | Require a verification method, site visit, record review or photograph, for every finding above observation grade. |
| The same finding appears in consecutive audits under different finding IDs. | ISO 19011 cl.6.6 | Cross-reference new findings against the prior audit's open items before raising a new ID, and record it as a repeat finding, not a fresh one. |
| Root cause recorded as superficial or absent, action taken addressing only the symptom described in the finding. | Standard-specific (Annex SL cl.10.2) | Return the finding for a cause analysis before accepting the corrective action as adequate. |
| Overdue findings carry no escalation and no action record. | ISO 19011 cl.5.4.5 | Raise a CAPA or suspension record once a finding passes its due date, rather than carrying it forward at the next follow up. |
| Closure percent reported without distinguishing critical or major findings from observations. | ISO 19011 cl.6.5.6 | Weight or report closure by grade, since a high overall percentage can mask an open critical finding. |
| Follow up conducted by the original auditor with no independent check of the evidence provided. | ISO 19011 cl.7.2 | Have the contract owner or a second reviewer check the highest-grade findings; continuity of judgement can mean continuity of a missed assumption. |
Case in point
Case in point: the finding that closed twice
A documentation audit found a contractor's confined space entry permits were being signed by a supervisor not on the approved signatory list. The finding was rated major. The contractor responded within the window, stating the supervisor had been removed from the rota and only listed signatories would sign going forward. The follow up closed the finding on that statement, Verified By Us recorded as Accepted on trust.
The next scheduled audit, eleven months later, found the same supervisor's name on three recent permits. Nothing had changed on site; the rota adjustment had lasted about six weeks. The corrective action was to require a sample of permits as evidence before closing any finding tied to a named individual or process step, rather than accepting a description of change as proof it happened.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
4 sections
- Reference
- CON-029
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- CAF-2026-000
- Scoring
- Closure percent
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 19011
- Links
- Links Vendor, Audit, CAPA
- Tags
- Contractor, Verification
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 46
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 7
Header
12 fieldsFollow Up ID*
Auto sequence. Format CAF-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Contractor*
Vendor ID*
Format VEN-0000.
Links to FDN-005 Vendor ID
Original Audit ID*
Immediate predecessor record
Original Audit Date*
Days Since Audit*
Closed Means Verified
A contractor saying a finding is closed is not closure. Go and look, or ask for evidence you can check.
Findings closed
Repeats12 fieldsFinding ID*
Links to FDN-015 Finding ID
Finding Summary*
Grade*
- Critical0 pts
- Major1 pt
- Minor2 pts
- Observation3 pts
- Opportunity for improvement3 pts
Response Received*
- Yes3 pts
- Late1 pt
- No0 pts
Response On Time*
- Yes3 pts
- Late1 pt
- No0 pts
Root Cause Given*
- Yes3 pts
- Superficial1 pt
- No0 pts
Action Taken
Action Strength*
Retraining their operator is weak. Changing their process or providing equipment is strong.
- Eliminate or engineer4 pts
- Process change3 pts
- Supervision or verification2 pts
- Retraining1 pt
- Reminder or reissue0 pts
Evidence Provided*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Verified By Us*
- Yes3 pts
- Accepted on trust1 pt
- No0 pts
Verification Method
Site visit, photograph, document review or next audit.
- Site visit4 pts
- Record review3 pts
- Photograph2 pts
- Statement only0 pts
Closed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Related records
2 fieldsSite Audit ID
The audit whose findings are being followed up.
Links to CON-025 Audit ID
Documentation Audit ID
Documentation findings being followed up.
Links to CON-026 Audit ID
Summary
20 fieldsFindings Raised*
Findings Closed*
Closure Percent*
Overdue Findings*
Repeat Findings From Previous Audit*
The same finding twice means the first closure was not real.
Average Days To Close
Contractor Responsiveness*
- Prompt3 pts
- Slow1 pt
- Poor0 pts
Escalation Required*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Approval Status Affected*
- No3 pts
- Conditions applied1 pt
- Suspended0 pts
Feeds Scorecard*
Scorecard ID
Links to CON-014 Scorecard ID
Next Audit Due*
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Auditor*
Signature*
Contract Owner*
Second Signature*
CON-029 · record IDs look like CAF-2026-000 · Links Vendor, Audit, CAPA
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The verification is the hard part, and it is what gets skipped when the follow up becomes a form to complete rather than a check to carry out.
Holds the follow up against the original audit's findings, tracks average days to close, and blocks a follow up being logged without a linked audit ID.
Surfaces safety-related findings from the linked site audit so verification effort is weighted by hazard, not treated the same for every finding.
Routes findings with superficial or absent root cause back through the CAPA process before they can be marked closed.
Flags a repeat finding against the prior audit automatically, holding escalation for approval rather than letting a third open cycle pass unnoticed.
This template lives in KnowContractor — contractor management. Prequalification, approval, induction, permits and performance.
Meet KnowContractor→Glossary
Contractor Audit Follow Up definitions and key terms
- Closure percent
- The share of findings from the original audit verified closed at the point the follow up is completed; the scored outcome of this template.
- Repeat finding
- A finding that recurs from a previous audit, indicating that an earlier closure was not effective even though it was recorded as complete.
- Root cause
- The underlying condition producing a finding, distinct from the specific instance the auditor observed; a fix aimed only at the instance will not prevent recurrence.
- Verification method
- The means by which closure is checked, ranked from a site visit or record review down to accepting the contractor's statement without independent check.
- Escalation
- Moving an unresolved or repeat finding to a formal instrument, typically a CAPA or suspension record, rather than carrying it forward unresolved at the next follow up.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about contractor audit follow up
How soon after an audit should the follow up run?+
Thirty to ninety days is the usual window: soon enough that the finding is still fresh, late enough that the contractor has had a realistic chance to implement rather than just promise a fix. A week checks intent, not completion.
Can a finding be closed without a site visit?+
For lower-grade findings, yes, a record review or photograph is often proportionate. For a critical or major finding, closing on a statement alone gives the same assurance you had before the follow up was run.
What happens to a finding that is still open?+
It carries forward, and if it has already carried forward once, or sits past its due date, it should escalate rather than repeat the same review cycle indefinitely. A finding open across three follow ups without escalation is a programme failure, not a contractor one.
Does closure percent affect the contractor's approval status?+
It can. Approval Status Affected records whether conditions were applied or approval suspended, and a poor closure percentage combined with a critical unresolved finding is grounds for either.
Who should conduct the follow up if not the original auditor?+
The contract owner is the accountable party, and while the original auditor's technical knowledge is useful, an independent check on the significant findings guards against the auditor confirming their own earlier judgement rather than the evidence.
Is a follow up needed if the contractor's work has already finished?+
Yes, if findings were open when the engagement ended. An unresolved finding at demobilisation is exactly what the scorecard and approved contractor list need to reflect, not something that expires with the contract.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Contractor Onboarding and Management
Contractor Prequalification Questionnaire
Collects a contractor's safety, insurance, training and performance information before they are approved
Contractor Safety Statistics Review
Reviews a contractor's injury rates, citations and experience modifier over recent years
Contractor Risk Classification
Classifies a contractor by the risk of the work they do, from low risk services to high risk construction
Contractor Approval Record
Records the decision to approve a contractor to work on site
Contractor Safety Program Review
Reviews the contractor's own written safety programme against your requirements
Subcontractor Declaration
Records any subcontractors a contractor intends to use
More in Contractor Audits
Contractor Site Safety Audit
Audits a contractor's work on your site against their method statement and your requirements
Contractor Documentation Audit
Audits whether the contractor's records, permits and training evidence are complete and current
Contractor Equipment Verification
Checks that contractor equipment brought on site is inspected, certified and fit for use
Subcontractor Verification Audit
Checks that subcontractors have been vetted to the same standard as the main contractor
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 19011:2018 clauses 6.5, 6.6 and 5.4
- ISO 19011:2018 clause 7.2, competence of auditors
- OSHA multi-employer worksite doctrine, CPL 02-00-124
- HSE INDG368, Contractors: A Brief Guide
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.