IATF 16949, accredited logos, calibration capabilities, etc.

[Jim Wynne]

That is my point. Some would say that the LOGO itself must appear on the certificate. Some including the IATAF FAQ seem to say the Logo must be there, but their own verbiage says "or acceptable to the customer". In this case the customer requested an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited calibration lab perform the calibrations; however, they did not specify that the calibration itself be on the scope of accreditation - just that the lab is accredited. I hope I'm explaining the scenario ok - I do understand it's confusing to even get in to the details like this at times.

IF I understand you correctly, and the customer requires an accredited lab but for a given lab, the device in question doesn't appear on the lab's scope, AND you can't find an accredited lab that does include the device in its scope, you give that information to the customer and let them decide how to proceed. If they tell you to use the lab anyway, you have their approval (which must be properly documented).

 

[try2makeit]

Why would you want to pay a accredited lab for a calibration that is not in their lab scope? The Customer should not have to specify the calibration - it is up to you to make sure the accredited lab can perform the calibration, right test standard and equipment. If you cannot find a accredited lab that can perform the test, the Customer needs to be informed and it is up to the customer to accept the calibration equipment as is or you have to agree on another piece of equipment.

 

[itsbiodiversity]

thank you for the replies. it seems all are in agreement that the client (or IATAF involved entity) has to decide what is proper.

 

[Howard Atkins]

I don't agree
It is a very simple and clear requirement which was introduced exactly for the following scenario that the accredited lab actually works as "promised" by the fact that they have accreditation and not just use as a PR issue.
You think you order from an accredited lab but they cheat you!!

 

[itsbiodiversity]

I don't agree
It is a very simple and clear requirement which was introduced exactly for the following scenario that the accredited lab actually works as "promised" by the fact that they have accreditation and not just use as a PR issue.
You think you order from an accredited lab but they cheat you!!

I appreciate your input, but you're taking all of the decision making off of the decision maker. When a calibration is quoted it is clearly quoted based on the level of service requested (eg NIST, ISO, data, no data, ISOwUc). The promise is that the work is performed as quoted - regardless of industry. If a calibration is quoted as NIST Traceable, it may or may not be ISO/IEC accredited under that laboratory's scope of accreditation. That is up to the person who places the "order" to decide. A calibration lab that services a wide range of instruments rarely offers one, accredited service for all instruments they service. Not even Keysight does all of their own instrumentation accredited, or is able to. So in this case you are a bit off. It is up to the person ordering calibration to determine the type of service required, not for the calibration lab.

 

[Howard Atkins]

I appreciate your input, but you're taking all of the decision making off of the decision maker. When a calibration is quoted it is clearly quoted based on the level of service requested (eg NIST, ISO, data, no data, ISOwUc). The promise is that the work is performed as quoted - regardless of industry. If a calibration is quoted as NIST Traceable, it may or may not be ISO/IEC accredited under that laboratory's scope of accreditation. That is up to the person who places the "order" to decide. A calibration lab that services a wide range of instruments rarely offers one, accredited service for all instruments they service. Not even Keysight does all of their own instrumentation accredited, or is able to. So in this case you are a bit off. It is up to the person ordering calibration to determine the type of service required, not for the calibration lab.

You are correct for ISO 9001 BUT NOT FOR IATF 16949 which requires certificates with the accreditation mark.
There is no leeway for you as the standard states

- the laboratory shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 or national equivalent and include the
relevant inspection, test, or calibration service in the scope of the accreditation (certificate); the
certificate of calibration or test report shall include the mark of a national accreditation body;
The alternative is to go to the customer.

If you are certified to IATF then you have taken this on yourself and that was your decision.
If you don't want to to accept this requirement get out of the kitchen, you cannot decide which shalls you want to maintain based on spurious arguments as to "- It is up to the person ordering calibration to determine the type of service required, not for the calibration lab:"
NO it is up to the standard!

I do not understand the windmills you are tilting at

 

[itsbiodiversity]

You're correct, but you're acting like the standard is a decision making entity. When a calibration lab is contacted for service the explanation of services is clear. The calibration lab doesn't then look up the client, decide what standards to apply randomly, and then perform the calibration under what they think best suits the client's industry. It just doesn't work that way.

You also keep placing bold emphasis and italics on this part that fits your narrative:
" the laboratory shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 or national equivalent and include the
relevant inspection, test, or calibration service in the scope of the accreditation (certificate); the
certificate of calibration or test report shall include the mark of a national accreditation body;
The alternative is to go to the customer. "

OOPS - looks like you stated yourself that the alternative is to go to the customer.

there shall be evidence that the external laboratory is acceptable to the customer.

Just like Jim Wynne stated above - there is an "out" here that there may be a case where the calibration cannot be accomplished under ISO/IEC 17025. Why are you still arguing against the standard, which clearly states this?

Also I'm not in the "kitchen", nor am I part of an IATAF regulated organization - I am, and have been for years - been involved in ISO/IEC 17025 calibration laboratories.

I am making those statements based on your accusation of an accredited calibration laboratory "cheating" a customer that requests work outside the scope of accreditation. I'm not arguing the IATAF guidelines - you made a straightforward statement that contradicts services offered by every major calibration laboratory in existence. Even FLUKE does calibrations unaccredited, for god's sake.

Story Time:
Man goes to restaurant. Asks for the daily specials. Burgers pickles (NIST Traceable) $3.99, Burgers with all the fixin + fries (NIST + Uncertainties) $4.50, or the Ribeye special (ISO/IEC accredited) for $9.99. Man chooses burger and places order with staff. Staff delivers a burger as promised; however, the man argues he should've received a Ribeye, as Ribeye was offered on the lunch specials. Staff explains he chose and paid for a burger.

In your world that is "cheating" a customer? Or should that customer know what they want and what they want to pay for said service?

 

[Howard Atkins]

I am a vegetarian and do not understand about burgers
sorry