The programme assessed against your site, and your contractor's performance assessed against the programme.
A pest control programme review assesses both the programme itself and the performance of the contractor delivering it. It covers device mapping and placement, inspection frequency, trend analysis, proofing of the building, and whether the contractor's reports give you information you can act on. Most sites outsource pest control entirely, which makes judging contractor performance the harder half of the job.
Outsourcing the work does not outsource the responsibility. A business holding a contract it cannot evaluate has bought visits, and auditors assess the programme as yours. The harder half of this review is giving you a basis for judging whether you are being served well.
Device mapping, frequency, trend analysis and proofing assessed, alongside contractor report quality and responsiveness. Delivered on site, in any language, quoted on scope.
Eight elements, each assessed against the site as it is today, not the site the programme was originally written for.
| Element | What good looks like | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Device map and placement | A current site plan with every device numbered and located, placed on evidence of pest pressure and routes. | A map drawn at contract start and never revised after layout changes. |
| Device type selection | Bait, trap and monitor types appropriate to the target species, the zone and the food safety risk. | Toxic bait used internally where it should not be, or monitoring only where control is needed. |
| Inspection frequency | Visit intervals set on risk and activity history, with intensification after any finding. | A fixed monthly visit regardless of what the trend is showing. |
| Trend analysis | Findings analysed by location and over time, so pressure and patterns surface. | Each visit read alone, so a device catching something every month is never noticed. |
| Proofing | Physical exclusion at doors, drains, service penetrations and the building envelope. | Recommendations repeated on every report and never actioned. |
| Contractor reporting | Reports naming findings, locations, species, actions taken and actions required of you. | A signed sheet confirming a visit happened, with no actionable content. |
| Corrective action ownership | Clear split between what the contractor does and what the site must do. | Recommendations addressed to nobody, so nothing moves. |
| Records and licences | Contractor competence, licences, product approvals and safety data all current and held on site. | Documentation held by the contractor and unavailable during an audit. |
Eight things to look for. Most businesses hold a pest control contract and have no basis for evaluating it, which is what these are for.
A finding recorded as evidence of rodent activity, with no species identified, cannot drive a targeted response.
Proof the building is a recommendation nobody can action. Seal the gap under the goods in door is one somebody can.
A contractor delivering only visit sheets is giving you raw data and no analysis. Trend reporting should come as part of the service.
The same recommendation repeated for two years indicates either the site is ignoring it or the contractor has stopped expecting action. Both are findings.
Always arriving the same morning of the same week means the contractor sees the site in the same state every time.
An activity finding should produce increased frequency, additional devices and an investigation, not simply a note on the sheet.
A contractor who has never raised a site condition issue is not looking, or is not willing to say what they see.
Licences, competence records, product approvals and safety data available when an auditor asks, not held at the contractor's office.
Eight failures, and the first two are what auditors look at before anything else.
Every visit read in isolation. A device catching activity every month for a year says something no single report does, and that pattern is what an auditor looks for first.
The same recommendation on twelve consecutive reports. Auditors read a repeated open recommendation as evidence the programme is documented and not managed.
Layout changed, devices moved, numbers reused. The map is the record of where control exists, and a wrong map means findings cannot be located.
A signed sheet confirming attendance. It evidences a visit and nothing about pest pressure, condition or risk.
Recommendations addressed to the business generally. Without a named owner and a date, proofing and housekeeping actions do not happen.
Monthly visits continuing through a period of rising activity. Frequency should respond to what the trend shows.
Bait placed in production areas where non toxic monitoring is the correct approach, creating a contamination risk the programme was meant to prevent.
External harbourage, waste areas, vegetation and neighbouring land ignored. Pressure builds outside and the programme only measures what got in.
Trend analysis of your historic findings is included, and on most sites it has never been done.
| Element | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Programme assessment | The written programme against your standard's requirements and against the site. |
| Device map review | Placement checked against pest pressure, routes and current layout, with a revised map where needed. |
| Frequency and type | Whether inspection intervals and device types suit the risk and the target species. |
| Trend analysis | Your historic findings analysed by location and over time, which frequently has never been done. |
| Contractor performance | Report quality, responsiveness, recommendation specificity and documentation availability. |
| Proofing survey | Physical exclusion gaps at doors, drains, penetrations and the envelope, prioritised. |
| Action ownership | A clear split between contractor actions and site actions, each with an owner. |
| Contract recommendations | The service terms missing from your pest control agreement. |
Manufacturers, processors, packers, storage operations and catering businesses. It suits any site that outsources pest control and has no basis for judging the service, which is most of them.
Pest control has been raised as a finding at an audit.
Your contractor's reports confirm visits and tell you nothing else.
The same recommendation has appeared on report after report.
Nobody has ever analysed your findings as a trend.
The device map does not match the current site layout.
Activity is rising and the visit frequency has not changed.
You hold a contract and have no way to judge whether it is good.
The programme stops at the building line.
You share the programme, the device map, contractor reports for the past period, and your record of actions taken.
Historic findings are analysed by location and over time, which usually surfaces patterns nobody has seen.
Device placement is checked against pest pressure, routes and current layout, inside and outside the building.
Doors, drains, service penetrations and the envelope are assessed for physical exclusion gaps.
Report quality, recommendation specificity, responsiveness and documentation availability are evaluated.
Actions are split between contractor and site, each with an owner, alongside contract term recommendations.
Pest control treatment and device servicing. This is an assessment of the programme, and the work continues to be carried out by your contractor.
Contractor recommendations. No commission or referral arrangement exists with any pest control company.
Proofing and building work. The survey identifies and prioritises the gaps, and the work is carried out by your contractors.
Every review is quoted against its own scope. A single unit with thirty devices and a multi building site with two hundred are very different pieces of work. These factors set the price.
These are the primary sources this work is built on. Where a market you sell into has its own requirement, that takes precedence and we assess against it.
A current device map with every device numbered and located, device types suited to the target species and the zone, an inspection frequency set on risk and activity, trend analysis by location and over time, a proofing survey of the building, contractor reporting that names findings and actions, clear ownership of site side actions, and contractor competence records held on site.
Look at whether reports name species, whether recommendations are specific enough to action, whether trend data is provided as part of the service, whether recommendations change over time, whether visits vary in timing, and whether the contractor has ever challenged a site condition. A contractor who has never raised anything is not looking.
On a frequency set by risk and activity history, with intensification after any finding. A fixed interval maintained through a period of rising activity is a common finding, because frequency should respond to what the trend shows.
Because a single report tells you what was found on one day. A device catching activity every month for a year tells you there is a route, a harbourage or a pressure source that has never been addressed. Auditors examine trends before they examine individual reports.
Generally no in food production areas. Internal monitoring should normally be non toxic, with toxic bait used externally in tamper resistant stations. Placing rodenticide in production areas creates a contamination risk the programme exists to prevent.
Yes, and it is a finding against you, not against them. A recommendation repeated across many reports shows the site is not acting, and auditors read an open recommendation left outstanding as evidence the programme is documented and not managed.
It should. Pest pressure builds outside, in waste areas, vegetation, drainage and neighbouring land. A programme that starts at the building line only measures what already got in, and it has no view of what is coming.
An approach that puts exclusion and habitat control first, monitoring second and treatment last. Programmes relying primarily on bait and treatment are managing symptoms while the conditions attracting pests remain.
The site, almost always. Contractors identify proofing needs and rarely carry out building work. Recommendations addressed to nobody in particular do not get done, which is why the review assigns an owner and a date to each.
Contractor competence and licence records, product approvals and safety data for anything used, the current device map, visit reports, trend analysis and your record of actions taken against recommendations. Documentation held only at the contractor's office is unavailable when an auditor asks for it.
Not necessarily. A weak programme frequently reflects a weak specification and site side inaction as much as contractor performance. The review separates the two, so the decision is made on evidence.
A programme assessment, a device map review with a revised map where needed, frequency and device type findings, trend analysis of your historic data, a contractor performance assessment, a prioritised proofing survey, action ownership and the service terms missing from your contract.
Confi Food assigns work by subject. HACCP, labelling, certification standards, regulatory compliance, supplier assurance and monitoring are separate disciplines, and each piece goes to someone who works in that area. Every deliverable is reviewed internally by a second specialist before it reaches you.
Our technical positions are built from primary sources, meaning the legislation, the competent authority, Codex Alimentarius, the certification scheme owner or the relevant standards body. We set out how that works in our technical review and editorial policy, and what happens at each stage of an engagement in how Confi Food works.
A review of the prerequisite programmes underneath your HACCP plan, since a hazard analysis is only as sound as the PRPs it assumes.
Read about Prerequisite Programme Review →A structured walk of the facility assessing hygienic design, zoning, flows, fabrication and housekeeping against prerequisite programme requirements.
Read about Facility Hygiene Assessment →Certificated courses covering HACCP, auditing, hygiene and the major standards.
View courses →Expert EU food hygiene consulting worldwide. Regulation 852/2004 and 853/2004 compliance, HACCP-based procedures, establishment approval, official controls, and 2026...
See EU Hygiene Regulations Consulting →Expert IFS Logistics consulting worldwide. Version 3 gap assessments, certification prep, the 5 KO requirements, IFS Star status and mock audits for storage,...
See IFS Logistics Consulting →Expert ISO 22002 consulting worldwide. Prerequisite programmes (PRPs) supporting ISO 22000 and FSSC 22000, the 2025 restructured series with Part 100, sector-specific...
See ISO 22002 Consulting →Send your programme, your device map and your contractor reports, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the deliverable and the price.