Calibration Service Suppliers refuse NIST reference numbers on C of C

My employer is currently doing business with a Calibration Service Supplier who refuses to include an NIST reference number on the C of Cs they provide.
The supplier states that their "Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2005" makes the NIST reference number unnecessary and adds "excess" cost to their process. They go on to state that no longer providing NIST reference numbers on C of Cs is the trend with Labs who are accreditated to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and AL2A.

My registrar still expects an NIST number. May I have your comments?

I've never heard of such a thing. Maintaining traceability is a basic requirement, and including evidence on certificates is standard practice. If your PO states that NIST traceability is required, they have to provide the evidence. You might want to tell them you're going to ask their AB what they think about the practice.

Good day aavtqa,

You didn't say what standard you operate to. ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 don't have specific requirements for traceability, but ISO 9001, 7.6a) says measuring equipment shall be calibrated/verified against measurement standards traceable to international or national measurement standards. TS 16949 shares this requirement. Then there's what your customer expects.

I would find the calibration lab's response unacceptable and would seek a lab that provides traceability.

That said, I have seen some certificates that list a test method as traceability for an entire set instead of listing the single standards, usually for scales. When asked, they should be able to fax evidence of that set's calibration, which usually does include serial numbers. Does the lab list a test method for traceability?

Actually, the position given by the Calibration provider has merit. Refer to this posting by A2LA

http :// www. calibrationservice .com/PR7799PolicyNIST.htm - LONG DEAD LINK

The NIST Calibration Program often receives calls to verify the authenticity of a NIST Report of Test number appearing on another organization's report. Although NIST can verify the authenticity of its report numbers, having an authentic number does not provide assurance or evidence that the measurement value provided by another organization is traceable. Not only should there be an unbroken chain of comparisons, each provided measurement should be accompanied by a statement of uncertainty associated with the farthest link in the chain from NIST, that is, the last facility providing the measurement value. NIST does not have that information; only the facilities that provided the measurement values to the customer can provide the associated uncertainties and describe the traceability chain.

Click to expand...

And this from the NCSL (same link):

Test report numbers issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the United States Department of Commerce are intended to be used solely for administrative purposes. Although they are often used to uniquely identify documents which bear evidence of traceability, test report numbers should not be used nor required as proof of the adequacy or traceability of a test or measurement.​

​

Click to expand...

Note: I moved this thread to the ISO 17025 forum, as it seems more suitable for the question.

aavtqa said:

.................... My registrar still expects an NIST number. May I have your comments?

Click to expand...

Check the discussions in this thread: NIST Traceability Numbers - Confused Yet?


Also the link to NIST in the last post: Questions about Metrological Traceability in General.

BradM said:

Actually, the position given by the Calibration provider has merit. Refer to this posting by A2LA

http ://www. calibrationservice. com/PR7799PolicyNIST.htm - LONG DEAD LINK


And this from the NCSL (same link):

​

​

Instead of focusing on the NIST test numbers, verifying the actual traceability chain is far more important. I would present this information to your registrar and see if they are willing to engage A2LA on it.​

​

Click to expand...

I like A2LA's guidance pages.

But I want to take care not to muddle these two factors because the original question seemed to be about refusing to provide any traceability at all. For the record, the test reports I have seen referenced were to the states' Departments of Weights and Measures. As with calibration labs, they indicated which individual standards did not pass. These test methods were listed in the place where standard(s) used for calibration would be listed.

Jennifer Kirley said:

I like A2LA's guidance pages.

But I want to take care not to muddle these two factors because the original question seemed to be about refusing to provide any traceability at all. For the record, the test reports I have seen referenced were to the states' Departments of Weights and Measures. As with calibration labs, they indicated which individual standards did not pass. These test methods were listed in the place where standard(s) used for calibration would be listed.

Click to expand...

There must be evidence given for traceability.

BradM said:

There must be evidence given for traceability.

Click to expand...

I agree. Otherwise, what good is it?

Jennifer Kirley said:

I like A2LA's guidance pages.

But I want to take care not to muddle these two factors because the original question seemed to be about refusing to provide any traceability at all. ...

Click to expand...

I disagree, the lab stated they followed 17025-2005 and that adding the remarks of NIST tracability numbers to the reports was NVA. Most tend to misconstrue what "tracability to NIST" (or other national primary lab) really means. Most any set of gage blocks is tracable to NIST, although that line could be about 10 steps long. What value does that truly offer?

In the case of the lab, they most likely have a many reference standards used for calibrating the equipment used to calibrate the tools for customers. Most would not wish to actually pay the associated overhead costs involved referencing the actual national lab reference reports on each individual cert or C of C.

If the individuals PO specifically (not buried in T&C boilerplate) had the requirement and the lab did not perform then I think they have a legal issue.

Previously posters mentioned ISO9000, TS16949 requirements for tracability, which they do, but they do not specifically state how it must be documented. If audited the lab should be able to show the tracability as objective evidence to the auditor.