ISO 17025 Clause 5.9 - Calibration results - How to achieve what ISO wants

[Sofia Cal]

Hello everybody,

I have just finished writing a QM of ISO 17025 (We are a calibration Lab going for accreditation). I have covered everything except clause 5.9 about Assuring the quality of calibration results.
Can everyone help me?
What of procedures do I need to write. What is the way to achieve (practically) what ISO wants in this clause?

Thanks in advance

Sofia

[sonflowerinwales]

Sofia
In our lab we performed "inter-laboratory comparisons". We used to cross check our results with another lab, and between each other, to ensure our results agreed. If not, check methods, and re-calibrate, if still not right, get someone else to do the check until the cause is found. The acceptable error needs to be set, we used within the 1/2 the average uncertainty of the two results. (Some labs had different uncertainties to ours).
Hope this helps.
Paul

[Hershal]

Sofia Cal,

This clause addresses assurance of quality, and several methods are listed. However, every MRA (ILAC, APLAC, IAAC, EA) states that PT/ILC (Proficiency Testing / Inter-Laboratory Comparison) is the only acceptable metod for fulfillmentof this clause - WHERE IT EXISTS.

Check with your accrediting body, EA and ILAC.....it may not exist. If not, then you fall back into one or more of the other methods.

Hope this helps.

Hershal

[Sofia Cal]

Thanks guys

for your help.
Unfortunately in our country there aren't any other labs performing gas meter calibrations. There aren't any interlaboratory comparisons. I was looking for a more simple way to prove clause 5.9.
Thanks anyway...

Sofia

[sonflowerinwales]

Sofia
Could you not do independent tests bteween your staff, possibly using different equipment or methods?
Paul

[Hershal]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sofia Cal

Thanks guys

for your help.
Unfortunately in our country there aren't any other labs performing gas meter calibrations. There aren't any interlaboratory comparisons. I was looking for a more simple way to prove clause 5.9.
Thanks anyway...

Sofia

Clause 5.9 has four other ways to assure quality.....you should be able to use one or more of them. Keep your accrediting body informed so they are aware of the issue when they come for assessment.

Hershal

[Sofia Cal]

Unfortunately I only have one test bench, so I can not change much in the cal procedure.
I could try d) and e) of paragraph 5.9.1 but would that be enough?
I mean, I already have a complicated test bench (containing Master Meters, temperature and pressure sensors, time base, piping, valves...) and I use a non-standard method (developped in the lab) which is based in whatever usefull I could find in published standards related to gas meters, and to other countries labs methods. There aren't any standard methods about calibrating gas meters.
I 'll try to do my best.... and then see what the accreditation body says...

Thanks again..

Sofia

[Hershal]

The combination of d and e shouild be sufficient.....make sure you keep good records on it.

Also, for your method, make sure you have validated it, or are at least in the process of validating it, and keep good documentation of that. A plan should be adequate for the beginning and a report at the end, matching the outcome of validation efforts to the planned or expected outcome as defined in the validation plan. Using d and e will also help you in the validation.

I am looking forward to you becoming accredited.....you may put a little pressure (pun intended) on the U.S. market.....

Hershal