Jeff Frost said:
Though typically government bodies anoint organizations like ANAB it should not be considered a negative if an AB does not have a governmental approval.
I agree. I simply stated fact, not opinion there. The North American market is unique in the number of recognized accrediting bodies operating here, and by that I mean for lab accreditation. That is considered good by some (myself included), and not so good by others.
There are essentially two umbrella organizations, IAF and ILAC. In the past, each had a divion of responsibilities, now there is some cross-over. In general that may not be bad since most bodies are governmental and so carry out both types of accreditation in their respective economies. In the North American market that cross-over may ultimately develop to be a bad thing. Time will tell there.
ILAC accrediting bodies, or ABs for short, accredit to ISO/IEC 17025 (or in the U.S. ANSI/ISO/IEC 17025), and to ISO/IEC 17020, and to ISO Guide 65. The perception is generally (from this side of the fence to use an analogy) that IAF bodies accredit 9K and related registrars, ISO/IEC 17024 bodies, and so forth. ABs like IAS or A2LA are very unlikely to accredit 9K registrars. ANAB is better at that. Conversly, ANAB would potentially be at a significant disadvantage should they decide to accredit laboratories.
Even the governmental bodies that do both, such as UKAS, have staff that is generally dedicated to one or the other. That is not hard and fast, but tends to be the case, as ILAC - and I suspect IAF - may otherwise consider it a potential conflict.
The Standards now for recognition of ABs has gotten tighter also. ABs are now assessed to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011 for lab and inspection, and ISO/IEC 17021 (if published as a Standard and not still FDIS) for registrars. In partcular there are tough requirements as it relates to conflict, and in the case of 17011 as it relates to the technical assessment.
I realize this is kind of long but hope you find it useful.
Hershal