Folks, this is the scoop. These are not in any specific order. I compiled them to address some basic understanding of A2LA, Guide 25 and NVLAP. Happy reading!
------------snippo - the fun begins-------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:24:12 -0500
From: "Peter S. Unger"
To: 'Greg Gogates'
Subject: RE: NVLAP vs. A2LA Fields of Accreditation
Re: Scott's inquiry:
"Calibration" is one of several fields of accreditation under A2LA. Other "fields" include mechanical, chemical, electrical, nondestructive, etc. This classification is done to simplify the listing of accredited laboratories and for setting accreditation fees (labs are charged on a per-field basis)
The A2LA calibration field is further categorized into several 'sub-fields', equivalent to what NVLAP calls its fields of calibration. Each laboratory is accredited by A2LA for specific parameters (or units of measurement), and the range of measurement and best measurement capability (expressed as an uncertainty range) for each parameter and may be further delimited by technique, standard or instrument. This is described in a "scope" of accreditation (and often in more detailed supplements to the scope). The information provided in A2LA and NVLAP scopes of accreditation are equivalent to our international counterparts and conform to ILAC Guidelines on Scopes of Accreditation (ILAC G4:1994).
Unsuccessful attempts have been made to establish an international guide or standard for categorizing fields of testing and calibration for accreditation purposes. The failure to standardize field categories is probably due to the fact that accreditation bodies tend to adopt their own classification scheme to suit the accreditation interests that emerge in their economies. Since each country's economy is uniquely different, the classification schemes will tend to be different as well.
There is an ASTM Committee E-36 standard "Guide for Categorizing Fields of Capability for Laboratory Accreditation Purposes" (E1224-94) which provides insight on the issue but is not wholly followed by anyone that I know of. We beleive it needs to be revised or withdrawn. At the last meeting, E-36 discussed whether to propose its withdrawal based on its lack of use.
Scopes are unique to each accredited laboratory. The information from a scope is critical for understanding what actually is covered by a laboratory's accreditation. Often, a laboratory's scope of accreditation is quite limited. For example, a laboratory can be accredited for only one or a few parameters out of the more than 80 identified as part of the A2LA field of calibration.
It is imperative that users of calibration services obtain copies of accredited labs' scopes of accreditation in order to truly understand what specific types of calibrations that the accredited laboratories have been deemed competent to provide.
I hope this helps to clarify the possible confusion.
Peter Unger, A2LA President
5301 Buckeystown Pike, Suite 350
Frederick, MD 21704-8373
Direct Phone Line: 1 301 644 3212; Fax: 1 301 662 2974; Main Line: 1 301 644 3248
-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:11:54 -0800
From: JJ Electronics
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: NVLAP vs. A2LA Fields of Accreditation
Dear Scott,
Let me try to respond to your question.
I belong to an accredited calibration laboratory. It happens to be accredited by A2LA. At the time of the decision to become accredited we began our investigation into NVLAP and A2LA and the options and services each provided.
The decision to choose A2LA was based on cost for the service. NVLAP has a pricing structure that is cost prohibitive to a multi-disciplined laboratory. NVLAP has chosen to price per discipline which also gives a more targeted accreditation. A2LA treats accreditation of calibration in the field of calibration and issues a scope of accredited calibration available from the laboratory. This approach treats metrology as one discipline.
The end result of both services is accreditation.
At that time (3 years ago) I thought to myself the marketing of both services will be different.
NVLAP will probably be sought by single discipline labs (Rice Lake Weighing, Starrett) or large corporate labs (Compaq) or national labs (Sandia) that have deep pockets and can afford the pricing. A2LA will probably be sought by independant laboratories where cost is a factor.
But the end result is still the same. NVLAP and A2LA are both acceptable ways to become accredited (also by NAMAS). Both agencies are active in the promotion of accredited services and the market needs to decide which one it needs to choose. Both are signatories on mutual recognition agreements and are actively pursueing acceptance of US calibrations overseas.
It is unfortunate that some marketing by labs has gone on that seems to elevate one accreditation over the other. Some of this has come about careless assessors who state 'that you must receive such and such accreditation by ...'. So the lab then avertises the case. Certificates for an accredited calibration must also bear the logo of the accreditation service.
Marketing of accreditated calibration is inevitable especially now that QS-9000 rev 3 specifically calls for it.
The scope of accreditation is the issue. Customers must be savvy enough to figure out what calibrations they need and the uncertatinties that are appropriate to their situation. Written scopes are available either from the lab, or from the accrediting body. Most labs are very proud of their scopes, and are pleased to send them out upon request. Cal labs must have integrity and honestly report that they cannot issue accredited certificates on specific calibration.
I hope this helps and I stand ready for correction from my peers.
Jan
JJ Electronics
-------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:12:30 -0500
To: iso25
From: "Theodore D. Doiron" <nist.gov>
Subject: Re: RE2: NVLAP vs. A2LA Fields of Accreditation (fwd)
Hi,
I think Peter Unger's answer is very good. How the fields are described or
arranged is not terribly important, the scope is. That said, I thing the
whole detailed scope idea is a weakness.
The way things work now is if you have a customer with lots of gages, and
you are accredited for most of them, but not others you might not get their
business. Thus, a general cal lab might have to have an enormous scope,
including everything they might possibly do. Some scopes I've seen from
outside the US run pages.
An alternative is to accredit labs in real fields, like dimensional
metrology. They would be accredited for any measurement they make as long
as they follow their procedures for examining new work, making up
calibration procedures, and for making up uncertainty budgets. I admit
that it would seem very broad, but the assessor could go through their log
of calibrations and look up some of the odder ones and see if the lab
really was doing OK. It would give the company more flexibility. I don't
think the assessment would be much different than for a lab with a 5 page
list of calibrations in their scope. It is still a sampling process, and
picking a few cals to investigate closely from a 5 page scope is not very
much different than picking a few from the log book. It's worth thinking
about. We would have to convince the other accreditation agencies to go
along, or at least humor our eccentricities, but it could make the process
more useful.
ted doiron
____________________________________________________________________
Ted Doiron nist.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Precision Engineering Division 301 869-0822
Metrology Bldg., Rm. B113
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8211
U.S. Department of Commerce Technology Administration
-----------------------------
From: "Blackwood, Andrew"
To: iso25
Subject: NVLAP and A2LA
30 December 1998
Greetings:
Scott raises some interesting issues about the differences between the A2LA and NVLAP programs. Some history might help. NVLAP started out to accredit laboratories to do very specific things (like analyze air filter samples for asbestos according to the AHERA method), while A2LA started out to accredit laboratories within broadly defined disciplines of testing. Over the last decade or so, NVLAP has moved toward broader scopes of accreditation, and A2LA has moved toward being more specific about precisely what the laboratory is (and is not) accredited to do. Scott seems to be confusing the shorthand of the "field of testing" on the certificate with the detail stated in the Scope of Accreditation (which used to be restricted to a single page but now may run to several pages within a single field).
It is entirely appropriate for a laboratory to say that it is accredited within a specific field of testing, like calibration, without going into the gory details of the precise scope of that accreditation. It is inappropriate , however, for any accredited laboratory to claim that its accreditation applies to something which is not within the formal Scope of Accreditation issued by the accrediting body. That seems to be the focus of Scott's concern.
I might add that the fields within which A2LA does accreditation are defined by various documents written within the consensus system of ASTM; they are not dreamed up by A2LA. If you don't like the way the fields are defined, then join ASTM E36 and work to change them!
I guess that what upsets me is that Scott seems to find something underhanded in the A2LA system, which simply is what it is. As he points out , the A2LA approach has been able to function at lower cost, which certainly is a factor in considering who to choose to do your accreditation.
Disclaimer: I am Director of an A2LA-accredited laboratory in the Chemical field of testing; how electron microscopy (which is what we do) got to be Chemical in nature is an interesting question and part of the reason that I suggest that one join E36 instead of throwing rocks at it. I am a member of the A2LA Accreditation Council. Our laboratory used to be accredited by NVLAP to do AHERA asbestos testing, but we dropped the credential as a business decision (something to do with whether the revenues covered the accreditation fees).
BTW, does Scott have an affiliation (or a last name, for that matter)?
Andy
Andrew W. Blackwood, Ph.D.
Structure Probe, Inc.
P.O. Box 656
West Chester, PA 19381-0656
Ph: 1 610 436 5400
FAX: 1 610 436 5755
------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:49:32 -0500
From: "Peter S. Unger"
To: 'Greg Gogates'
Subject: RE: RE5: NVLAP vs. A2LA Fields of Accreditation
Happy New Year!
Ted Doiron makes a good point re simplification of a calibration scope of accreditation. His suggestion is already practiced by many accreditation bodies (A2LA included) whereby each individual instrument that a laboratory is competent to calibrate is not listed. A broader, more genral scope, as Ted Doiron suggests, is appropriate if the laboratory demonstrates competence for a cross section of most types of calibrations possible in a given field such as dimensional metrology.
However, the specific delineation becomes necessary when a laboratory is truly limited in its capability (i.e., the lab only calibrates one or a very few types of instruments under a broad "field", such as dimensional metrology). It would be very misleading to not identify the specific types of instruments if that is all the lab is capable of performing under the broader field. It also eliminates a bunch of requests to the lab for services that it does not provide.
Peter Unger, A2LA President
5301 Buckeystown Pike, Suite 350
Frederick, MD 21704-8373
Direct Phone Line: 1 301 644 3212; Fax: 1 301 662 2974; Main Line: 1 301 644 3248
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 17:10:44 -0500
From: Nancy Foncannon
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: OEM & A2LA & QS9000 (fwd)
Reginald: Yes, the requirement does apply to OEM calibration services. They need to have a Quality System that conforms to ISO/IEC Guide 25 or ANSI/Z540. Why should they be exempt? Their companies are made up of individuals and systems that are subject to "human error" as well as the "Mom & Pop" Calibration Services.
There are many OEM's that are currently accredited including Fluke, MTS, Tinius-Olsen, and Starret just to name a few I can remember. Check out the lists at the websites of NIST and A2LA. There are many more companies in the process of becomming accredited.
In addition to a technical review, the Quality System assessment looks to see if these companies have systems in place for dealing with corrective action and training. Perhaps the most important aspect of OEM accreditation is dealing with oversight of field service personnel including techniques, qualifications and calibration methods.
Regards, Nancy
-------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:48:59 -0500
From: "Brian S. Mulcahey"
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: RE: Re1: OEM & A2LA & QS9000
Sir,
The Statement in QS9000 Third Edition states that if you use a calibration service it must be ISO Guide 25 accredited or if none available your alternative is to use the OEM. From my understanding it doesn't implicate a mandate that the OEM must be accredited. This could be implicating a monopoly by A2LA in accrediting the manufacturers to perform a service on their own design and product for which they are very much capable, in most cases, to be doing that service. This was a sore spot in a previous discussion on CMM's and who is capable of doing the calibration. I will not elaborate to far but the intend of QS9000 was to help ensure competency of a lab that was not in direct support of a particular device or product to improve on the integrity of Third Party Calibration services instead of getting a short cut service. If this was the intent of QS9000 to mandate accreditation on the manufacturers a lot of people should contact the people involved to get it changed and if I was the manufacturer of the product I would be raising a big flag concerning it.
Merry Christmas to All and God Bless!!!!
Brian S. Mulcahey
Balanced Solutions for Metrology
616-751-8608
-----------------------------------
Subject: QS-9000 Lab Interpretations
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:04:08 -0500
From: "Dan Indish" us.bnsmc.com
To: Marc Smith
Marc -
Check out this:
DEAD LINK REMOVED
Dan Indish
------------------------------------
From: Dan Indish
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: OEM & A2LA & QS9000 (fwd)
Brown & Sharpe response:
Brown & Sharpe, as an OEM, is an international company and has been accredited to DIN EN 45001 (an international equivalent of ISO/IEC Guide 25) for calibration of Coordinate Measuring Machines and precision handtools via the PTB (the German equivalent of the NIST) through the DKD (the German equivalent of A2LA or NVLAP) since 1996 and the SIT (the Italian equivalent of the NIST) since 1995.
These accreditations have been in place before North America became actively involved in the accreditation process and before the A2LA or NVLAP was recognized by the world community and represent over 250 years of engineering experience and development in gages and gage calibration.
Daniel Indish
Sr. Quality Engineer
Brown & Sharpe Mfg.
401-886-2529
Greg Gogates wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:45:04 -0600
> From: "Reginald W. MacDonald"
> To: iso25
> Subject: OEM & A2LA & QS9000
>
> Folks:
>
> I am seeking commentary regarding OEM companies having to comply with
> A2LA accreditation requirements as detailed in rev 3 of QS-9000. OEM
> companies like Zeiss (CMM's), Brown & Sharpe, Mitutoyo etc...
>
> Since these companies due perform calibration/certification for QS
> customers due they themselves have to be A2LA accredited?
>
> Thanks or the help.
>
> Reginald W. MacDonald
> B. C. MacDonald & Co.
> 314-993-2833 Ext. 102, Fax 993-0405
-----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 11:00:41 -0600
From: Bob Seibert - sps.mot.com
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: Re1: OEM & A2LA & QS9000
I agree with Jag Kottha that OEM's are SUPPOSED to be accredited.
This particular addition to QS9000 does show a little bit of reasonable
logic though.
To quote the note in paragraph 4.11.2.b.1-
"Where a qualified laboratory does not exist for a given piece of equipment, calibration services may be performed by the original equipment manufacturer."
The real world interpretation of this is that our Registrar will not question the use of an OEM for calibrating electronic measurement equipment, CMM's, etc. Because of the existence of this note in the standard, evidently they have the expectation that equipment OEM's are not going to have ISO 25 accreditation.
At this time the Registrar will not ask for proof that "qualified labs" DO NOT exist. We have asked this specific question of our Registrar and that is their answer. I would suspect that this interpretation of the the note will tighten up in the future and put pressure on all OEM's to get accreditation. For right now, we are able to use them.
Regards,
Bob Seibert
Motorola Quality
-----------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:16:21 -0500
From: Dan Indish
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: RE8: OEM & A2LA & QS9000 (fwd)
Please refer your automotive Customers to the automotive industry document.
A previous post listed AIAG official automotive interpretations at this
website:
DEAD LINK REMOVED
Document quotes from AIAG page cited above:
"What follows is an explanation of both 4.10.6 and 4.11.2.b.1 directly from the DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force, the Big Three's team who facilitates the creation and maintenance of the QS-9000 Requirements."
>From AIAG Home Page, Index I, subparagraph 2 states:
"Labs and Calibration ISO Guide 25 Equivalent Standards
EN 45001: General criteria for the
operation of Testing laboratories
CAN-P-4C (October 1991)"
>From AIAG Home Page, Index I, subparagraph 4 states:
"Chrysler, Ford, General Motors Recognized Government Agencies for ISO Guide
25
Germany
PTB (Physikalisch-technissche
Bundesanstalt)
DKD (Duetscher Kalibrierdienst)"
R Company
