First, a big thank you
goes out to all who have provided assistance so far; online and offline. It truly is appreciated. For those offering help, beware! I’ll probably take you up on it! 
While I do have knowledge on many areas that I am asking about, I am also way too close to this one. Thus, I need some objectivity on this, so I do appreciate the input from all!
1. Policies/ procedures
Now, what I am envisioning is writing a sub-QMS for the “small” system. I also see it as a three-tiered system. The top procedures would outline the quality system. The middle section would encompass purchasing, management responsibility, and uncertainty calculations. Finally, the third tier would be the work instructions. At some point in the system, I will need to meet with our quality folks in charge of our QMS on this, as I believe they will need to accept the 17025 in lieu of the 9001 QMS.
2. Uncertainty calculations
I would like to see if it is feasible to go with what we currently have for the technical portion. We have established at least 4 to 1 accuracy ratios for our standards. We have a few less than 4 to 1, as the current technology limits the possible standards. This is the fundamental comparison of the tolerance of our standard, compared to the tolerance of the U.U.T.
We have not performed extensive uncertainty calculations. This is due to two components- 1) Assuring proper accuracy ratios has been deemed sufficient; 2) we have somewhere between 75-175 standards.
Of course, these (accuracies) are documented in several places within the system. I do need to get these into one document.
3. AB/ consultant
You state to get an AB sooner rather than later. But, if there is really no known robust system even close to 17025 requirements in-place, what value is gained in the initial stage? It seems to me you would want, say a consultant’s help, to develop the system. Then comes the work of the auditor by identifying initial gaps, efficacy of the system, etc. What value comes from getting the AB involved so early in the game?
Your comments, input, are welcome!

While I do have knowledge on many areas that I am asking about, I am also way too close to this one. Thus, I need some objectivity on this, so I do appreciate the input from all!
1. Policies/ procedures
Now, what I am envisioning is writing a sub-QMS for the “small” system. I also see it as a three-tiered system. The top procedures would outline the quality system. The middle section would encompass purchasing, management responsibility, and uncertainty calculations. Finally, the third tier would be the work instructions. At some point in the system, I will need to meet with our quality folks in charge of our QMS on this, as I believe they will need to accept the 17025 in lieu of the 9001 QMS.
2. Uncertainty calculations
I would like to see if it is feasible to go with what we currently have for the technical portion. We have established at least 4 to 1 accuracy ratios for our standards. We have a few less than 4 to 1, as the current technology limits the possible standards. This is the fundamental comparison of the tolerance of our standard, compared to the tolerance of the U.U.T.
We have not performed extensive uncertainty calculations. This is due to two components- 1) Assuring proper accuracy ratios has been deemed sufficient; 2) we have somewhere between 75-175 standards.
Of course, these (accuracies) are documented in several places within the system. I do need to get these into one document.3. AB/ consultant
You state to get an AB sooner rather than later. But, if there is really no known robust system even close to 17025 requirements in-place, what value is gained in the initial stage? It seems to me you would want, say a consultant’s help, to develop the system. Then comes the work of the auditor by identifying initial gaps, efficacy of the system, etc. What value comes from getting the AB involved so early in the game?
Your comments, input, are welcome!

