Do these certificates of calibration meet ISO 9001 requirements for traceability to NIST?

[Big Jim]

Thanks to all who replied! I thought 2 of the 3 met the requirement with the Delfesko (Cert 2) not meeting. Cert 3 was conducted by an accredited 17025:2017 lab for the particular item.

The issue I am having is that our certification body has put out a calibration letter stating that a lab cannot show traceability to NIST unless it has been certified to ISO 17025 standards. While that is great, I don't read that as a requirement in the ISO 9001 standard or on NIST's website.

Randy is right, the standard does not require that the calibration be performed at a lab accredited to 17025. For reference only, the automotive standard does though. The certification body is out of place and should be challenged with that old standby "show me the shall".

However, the certification they provided is still lacking as it does not provide the traceability to an international or national calibration standard. It states that they use instruments that are traceable, but fails to provide that traceability.

 

[QualitySteve]

You won't find it because this is required.... "calibrated or verified, or both, at specified intervals, or prior to use, against measurement standards
traceable to international or national measurement standards; when no such standards exist, the basis used for calibration or verification shall be retained as documented information;"

No language at all about NIST, 17025 or anything else.

Cert #2 says this..."This Adhesion Tester was calibrated to manufacturer's specifications according to procedure MP 2571 using calibrated test equipment traceable to NIST.

By the way, here's the procedure for calibration....

Thanks Randy! I just needed a sanity check to ensure I wasn't missing something. I have been running our QMS for 12 years and it seems the only thing consistent about different external auditors is their inconsistent interpretation of the standard.

 

[Randy]

Thanks Randy! I just needed a sanity check to ensure I wasn't missing something. I have been running our QMS for 12 years and it seems the only thing consistent about different external auditors is their inconsistent interpretation of the standard.

That's part of the problem, they interpret instead of read what it says.