We are a material testing company so we follow ASTM Standards in testing soils, aggregates, asphalts, and concretes. During the initial audit, the auditor told us that we don't have any record evaluating measurements of uncertainty and reading standards should help us determine which tests require it.
But after reading all the ASTM standards for the tests that we are accredited in, we couldn't seem to find any "statement" that requires the measurement of uncertainty. For the next audit they will certainly look for the files again but I saw this "ISO 17025 Clause 7.6 of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is applicable, i.e., where a well-recognized test method specifies the limits of the major sources of measurement uncertainty and the laboratory follows the test method and the reporting instructions;". Can I use this as a reason on why we are not evaluating the measurements of uncertainty?
We are following the standards and the standards specifies the limits of measurements (tolerances of equipment which are verified by a third-party calibration provider) and all of our calibrated equipment are within the limits of the said standards.
Also, how do you provide evidence that you are identifying risks to impartiality on an on-going basis? by giving them an updated list?
But after reading all the ASTM standards for the tests that we are accredited in, we couldn't seem to find any "statement" that requires the measurement of uncertainty. For the next audit they will certainly look for the files again but I saw this "ISO 17025 Clause 7.6 of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is applicable, i.e., where a well-recognized test method specifies the limits of the major sources of measurement uncertainty and the laboratory follows the test method and the reporting instructions;". Can I use this as a reason on why we are not evaluating the measurements of uncertainty?
We are following the standards and the standards specifies the limits of measurements (tolerances of equipment which are verified by a third-party calibration provider) and all of our calibrated equipment are within the limits of the said standards.
Also, how do you provide evidence that you are identifying risks to impartiality on an on-going basis? by giving them an updated list?