One more FYI:
-----snippo-----
Miguel -
I have seen many cases where the manufacturer's certificate that comes with an instrument is not compliant with the calibration requirements of the standard. It is really only a certificate of conformance, rather than a certificate of calibration, and certifies only that the instrument meets the manufacturer's published specifications. When you back track, this is based on a statistical sampling technique, and a true traceable calibration cannot be shown. This may be what your auditor was seeing.
On the other hand, an accredited lab is usually extreme overkill, for shop instruments especially, as well as being economically unjustifiable. You generally don't need the level of uncertainty available from an accredited lab for shop floor or general inspection instruments. You are better off putting in the time and calculations up front when setting up your system (or afterwards, as you make new purchases), to determine which instruments need what level of calibration, and basing your calibration services - both internal & external - on those requirements.
My experience in setting up and running calibration labs is that a large percentage of registrar auditors really do not understand calibration and metrology, and therefore self-impose requirements which have nothing to do with the standard or its practical implementation. Many of these requirements have everything to do with making the auditor's job easier & absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the quality and consistency of the product, which after all, is what this whole thing is about.
Hope this helps.
Nancy Harris