PRI - Performance Review Institute

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#1
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 21:20:57 EST
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Who is PRI ?

Jack, et al

The Performance Review Institute (PRI) is an affiliate of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The PRI accreditation process, in my opinion, is as qualified as most A2LA or ISO 9000 registrations However, in a recent call from a NIST representative regarding our accreditation claims, it appears that NIST does not recognize calibration sources accredited by A2LA or any other agency, but accept some certifications from A2LA accredited labs. A2LA and PRI (the NADCAP registrar that has approved over a thousand operations for Defense) were recognized to accept labs for testing under the Fastener Quality Act. Not authorized, but recognized? I'm confused!

For background - about a decade ago our duly constituted Congress decided, with the Fastener Quality Act, also affectionately known as FQA and P.L. 101-592 and amendments, that the fasteners the Government was buying were often sold by fraudulent agents. They could break unexpectedly and cause great distress. I can assure you, after a couple decades in the fastener industry, that this is a fact, not opinion. What, then, should be the required fastener testing? The law says that fasteners must be dimensionally tested . Therefore calibration, and Guide 25 calibration specifically, comes under the FQA. The Act, after some delays and consternation, is now scheduled to be law in less than 3 months! Jail terms and all.

The Congress solution is to require that fasteners testing and inspection occur under a standard quality program requiring Capability, Competence, and Ethics. Ergo, Guide 25! And how else to handle this program but ask NIST to control approval of the 500-1000 required labs to avoid a shutdown in manufacturing. It seems that NIST with NVLAP has been able to certify less than a dozen or so calibration labs in about as many years, and commercial calibration labs for this purpose are essentially not available. Therefore, other agencies must help- A2LA and PRI according to the NIST home page.

Many of the best calibration sources have less than a dozen employees, and have the highest level of expertise and ethics available. Many others are also not ethical. NVLAP accreditation is financially out of the question for these experts, as is A2LA. In comes PRI with a plausible solution.

PRI is a viable option for a lab with less than a hundred or so employees and no resident statistician. I applaud the PRI organization for their expertise and efforts and help with our program. I recommend the program, called the Calibration Cooperative, to qualified labs. You can check their web page www.pri.sae.org. Tell them Bill sent you! They left a light on for you.

W. H. Ray, M.S.
President
ISOCAL Laboratories
[email protected]
800-301-7811
Guide 25, ANSI Z540, and ISO 10012 Accredited by P.R.I. #0004
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#2
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:44:26 -0800
From: JJ Electronics <[email protected]>
To: Greg Gogates <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Who is PRI ? RE1

Here we go again.

>The Performance Review Institute (PRI) is an affiliate of the Society of
>Automotive Engineers (SAE). The PRI accreditation process, in my opinion, is
>as qualified as most A2LA or ISO 9000 registrations However, in a recent call
>from a NIST representative regarding our accreditation claims, it appears that
>NIST does not recognize calibration sources accredited by A2LA or any other
>agency, but accept some certifications from A2LA accredited labs. A2LA and PRI
>(the NADCAP registrar that has approved over a thousand operations for
>Defense) were recognized to accept labs for testing under the Fastener Quality
>Act. Not authorized, but recognized? I'm confused!

What the heck do you mean that NIST does not recognize A2LA accredited cal labs? If they don't then why did I become accredited? This person at NIST should be hunted down and flogged for making statements like this.

What in the world is the purpose of the MRA signed by NIST and A2LA and other national agencies if this kind of information is going to disseminate?

I realize that this is the internet and all information should be taken with a grain of salt but I thought there would be some truth here!

Where was PRI during the meetings that formed NACLA over 2 years ago? If they are not a signatory of any MRA then it is PRI accredited labs that are invalid.

I await some response from people truly in the know (ie the heads of NVLAP and A2LA).

Jan Johansen
JJ Electronics
[email protected]
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#3
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 07:22:33 -0800
From: JJ Electronics <[email protected]>
To: Greg Gogates <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Who is PRI ?

To all on the ISO25 list server:

I want to publicly thank Mr. James Ciglar for his personal reply to my tirade.
I am forwarding for all to see.

Jan Johansen
[email protected]

Forwarded message follows;

I am receiving second hand comments from people who are reading the ongoing controversial statements on the ISO 25 listserver regarding NIST not accepting A2LA accreditations and those performed by PRI/NADCAP. I thought I would send you some factual information that you can use as you wish.

NVLAP and A2LA are signatories to the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). It was signed in Tokyo in November of 1997. The signatories are accrediting bodies from the U.S. (NVLAP, A2LA), Australia (NATA), New Zealand (IANZ), Hong Kong (HOKLAS), Singapore (SINGLAS-SAC), Japan (JAB, JNLA), Chinese TaiPei (CNLA), and Korea (KOLAS). More are being added to the MRA as they complete their peer evaluation by international teams from the countries of APLAC. A copy of the MRA is available on the NVLAP web site at http://ts.nist.gov/nvlap.

This means that NVLAP recognizes the accreditations performed by our MRA partners as being technically equivalent to ours. This also means, as stated in the NVLAP Policy Guide on Traceability, PG-1-1998 (also on the NVLAP web site), that we accept traceability through calibration laboratories accredited by our MRA partners such as A2LA. I don't know the identity of the person at NIST who is accused by one of your suscribers as refusing to accept A2LA accredited laboratories. If anyone wishes to give me a name, I will make inquiries into the matter.

There are also some references to PRI and reluctance to accept accreditation of their calibration laboratories. Until today, I was unaware that PRI was in fact accrediting calibration laboratories. NVLAP has no way to judge whether or not PRI's accreditations of calibration laboratories are equivalent to NVLAP's. To my knowledge, they have not been assessed to ISO Guide 58 requirements (as have NVLAP and A2LA) by any international bodies such as APLAC or the European cooperation for Accreditation (EA) for their abilitity to accredit calibration laboratories. They have been assessed by the NIST Accreditation Body Evaluation Program (ABEP) to ISO Guide 58 requirements and have been recognized as a competent accreditor of fastener and metals testing laboratories under the terms of the Fastener Quality Act (FQA).

To further set one of your listserver respondents straight, NVLAP has accredited twenty- four calibration laboratories in five years, with an additional twenty-eight in process. Although these are low numbers compared to the numbers of calibration laboratories in the United States, this person's observation that NVLAP has only been able to accredit "twelve laboratories in as many years" is incorrect. We started the Calibration Laboratory Accreditation Program in May of 1994.

I would greatly appreciate you informing your participants that before they take it upon themselves to state NVLAP policies and to comment on our performance in areas which are easy to substantiate quantitatively, such as the numbers of laboratories accredited over a certain period of time, or which accreditation bodies we have mutual recognition arrangements with, that they contact us at [email protected] or visit our web site at http://ts.nist.gov/nvlap for some factual information.

James L. Cigler
Chief, Laboratory Accreditation Program
NVLAP
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S World Quality Week - PRI Articles AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
K PRI approved Sources & Consultants in Canada AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 16
G Combining AS9100, ISO 9001, & PRI (NADCAP) into 1 Internal Audit Internal Auditing 8
J PRI - NADCAP Certification requirement - AS9100 audit first before NADCAP audit? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 12
WCHorn NADCAP Nonconformance to a Handbook - PRI handbook for audits to AC7115 Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 1
G Is anyone familiar with PRI - Nadcap? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 20
D Performance of high shear mixer (or rapid mixing granulator Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
M Do you need an Applicable general safety and performance requirements Checklist? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
D Performance specification as a Risk Control Measure, EN 14971 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 7
G Defining performance metrics for DFMA implementation Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
B Four Key Performance Indicators for Continual Improvement (Dec. 3 2019) [Deleted] Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 2
F 5520A High Performance Multi-Product Calibrators General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
shimonv IEC 60601-1 Essential Performance - Is the signal accuracy specification an essential requirement? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
D Performance Qualification per GHTF Guidance Other Medical Device Related Standards 12
M Informational US FDA Final Guidance – Coronary, Peripheral, and Neurovascular Guidewires – Performance Tests and Recommended Labeling Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
O Performance Measurement ISO 9001: 2015 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
O Monitoring performance - How do I determine performance measurement basis within my organization? Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 4
M Informational MDCG 2019-9 Summary of safety and clinical performance A guide for manufacturers and notified bodies – August 2019 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational Several US FDA draft guidances, including some specific device guidances for the Safety and Performance Based Pathway Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational USFDA final guidance – Safety and Performance Based Pathway Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
H How to prepare Performance Qualification (PQ) for autoclave General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
M Performance Standard for Balloon Trocars Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
M Informational TGA Consultation: Proposed changes to medical device essential principles for safety and performance Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
rezayatmand IEC 60601-2-18 Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-18: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of endoscopic equipmen IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
Q Ineffective follow up of people performance - Audit Nonconformance ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
P Is there a counterpart to the General Safety and Performance Regulations for the USA? Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
D Summary of safety and clinical performance in GSPR MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M Informational EU draft act – Single-use medical devices – safety and performance requirements for reprocessing Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
B Essential Performance of a Cone Beam Computed Tomography Device IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
M Informational USFDA final guidance – Recommended Content and Format of Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing Information in Premarket Submissions Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational USFDA draft guidance – Technical Performance Assessment of Quantitative Imaging in Device Premarket Submissions Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational USFDA – Radiological Health Regulations; Amendments to Records and Reports for Radiation Emitting Electronic Products; Amendments to Performance Stand Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Characterization Testing - NO acceptance criteria, no minimum performance requirement Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
D IEC 60601-1 - Essential performance doesn't make sense IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 10
M Product Performance Claims Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
P Performance evaluation (IVDD Annex VIII) & Design and Development Validation Studies EU Medical Device Regulations 1
C How frequent to conduct Clinical / Performance Evaluation? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 4
M Informational USFDA Final Guidance – Safety and Performance Based Pathway Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
M FDA News USFDA – Safety and Performance Based Pathway Guidance Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
O Clean room performance qualification (pq) - How many times can I do each test? Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
Ed Panek Do standards have performance reviews? General Information Resources 2
M Medical Device News TGA – Regulator Performance Framework: Self-assessment Report, July 2017 to June 2018 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S Package performance testing for non-sterile Hydrogels US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
M Annex II - Technical Documentation. V&V, Performance and Safety EU Medical Device Regulations 3
D IEC 60601-1 - Performance limits for essential performance IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
Marc Definition GSPR - General Safety and Performance Requirements Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 0
M Annex I - General Safety and Performance Requirements. Precise identity - how provided EU Medical Device Regulations 6
A Users won't return devices from pre-CE performance evaluation study EU Medical Device Regulations 3
D Essential performance, accompanying documents....confused IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
Q Identification of Training Needs = People Performance? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom