The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Measurement, Test and Calibration
  ISO GUIDE 25

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   ISO GUIDE 25
Angel Rivera
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:CANTON,MASSACHUSETTS, USA
Registered: Dec 98

posted 07 December 1998 10:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Angel Rivera   Click Here to Email Angel Rivera     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have just been audited to the 3rd edition of QS9000. Like many other companies so far, I have a deviation for not haveing my equipment calibrated by all accredited labs or OEM's. Is there a list available of Accredited Lab Guide 25 companies? If so, I need to know where I can get my hands on it relatively soon.

Thanks,

Angel

------------------

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 08 December 1998 12:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know of any listing per se. You might check quality.org or the ASQC site.

Sorry I can't help here.

IP: Logged

Douglas Purdy
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 9
From:Hanover Park, IL, USA
Registered: Oct 98

posted 11 December 1998 01:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Douglas Purdy   Click Here to Email Douglas Purdy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Take a look at the article by Melissa Larson , "Cal Lab Accreditation Slowly takes Hold." It is a December article in Quality Online, a magazine on the NET. In the article it indicates that between the National Voluntary Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) there are currently 50 some labs accredited for dimensional calibrations. The article does give their website addresses too.

------------------

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 December 1998 07:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I received this e-mail:

-----snippo-----

Subject: ISO GUDIE 25
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:08:07 -0800
From: MJH
Organization:PR Company
To: ubb_forum@Elsmar.com

Dear Marc,

I had asked you a question about a list of accredited labs. I contacted A2LA and they have a web site (a2la.com) where you can retrieve a list per state, per field, or both. This is just in case someone else asks the same question.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 12-12-98).]

IP: Logged

Dan Indish
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 9
From:North Kingstown, RI, USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 21 December 1998 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Indish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you go to the bottom of the ISO25 web page www.fasor.com/~iso25

under the Measurement and Testing Lab section you will find links to A2LA,NVLAP, & CLAS's web site links to accredited labs.
Greg Gogates

admin Note: Forced HyperLink.

[This message has been edited by admin (edited 29 July 1999).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 January 1999 06:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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'
Cc: "'rrobinson@a2la.org'" ,
"'rsaar@a2la.org'" ,
"'tmadams@a2la.org'" ,
"'ppan@a2la.org'" ,
"'wmerkel@a2la.org'" ,
"'dvalentine@a2la.org'"
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@quality.org
From: "Theodore D. Doiron"
Subject: Re: RE2: NVLAP vs. A2LA Fields of Accreditation (fwd)
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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 (doiron@nist.gov) P 301)975-3472
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Precision Engineering Division F 301)869-0822
Metrology Bldg., Rm. B113
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8211

U.S. Department of Commerce Technology Administration

-----------------------------

From: "Blackwood, Andrew"
To: "iso25@fasor.com"
Subject: NVLAP and A2LA

-- [ From: Blackwood, Andrew * EMC.Ver #3.1 ] --

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
e-mail: ablackwood@2spi.com
WWW: http://www.2spi.com

------------------------------------

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"
To: Marc Smith

Marc -
Check out this:
http://www.aiag.org/quality/labs.html

Dan Indish
e-mail: bmulcahey@sirus.com

------------------------------------

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@fasor.com'"
> 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
> reggiem@bcmac.com

-----------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 11:00:41 -0600
From: Bob Seibert
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:
http://www.aiag.org/quality/labs.html

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)"

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 12 January 1999 06:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
One last one for thoughts:

---------------snippo-------------

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:23:38 -0500 (EST)
From: metrology@engineer.com
To: iso25@fasor.com
Subject: NVLAP vs. A2LA

Greetings Everyone,

I would like to ask the group's opinion on NVLAP accreditation versus A2LA accreditation. Specifically, I have noticed that organizations receiving A2LA accreditation in the "Field" of "Calibration." This seems extremely generalized and misleading. What of the scope of accreditation? Is this not the important issue when selecting an accredited lab? It seems to be a widespread misconception in industry that A2LA's fields are synonomous with scope. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is simply not true.

NVLAP on the other hand, has further defined the fields which its accreditation is issued for:

Dimensional
Electromagnetics - DC/Low Frequency
Electromagnetics - RF/Microwave
Ionizing Radiation
Mechanical
Optical Radiation
Thermodynamics
Time and Frequency

NVLAP's new website (notice the htm instead of html at the end of the URL):
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/214.htm

Again, one must look at the scope of accreditation to gain a true measure of laboratory competence. The fields, however, are much better defined also!

What guidance is there in determining the breakdown of fields? Why would a lab limit itself to a narrow field with a more costly accreditation (NVLAP)?

How are non-U.S. accreditation bodies defining their fields?

I know of several labs that are selling their services based upon advertising "A2LA accredited calibration services..."

Comments? Suggestions?

Scott

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 15 January 1999 07:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I recently found the document "ISO/DIS 17025 ÷ GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMPETENCE OF TESTING AND CALIBRATION LABORATORIES." This document is a draft version of a replacement for ISO Guide 25 (News to me). It was stated that the comment period had expired (Dec. 3).

Has anyone else heard of this?

Regards,
Don

[This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 01-18-99).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 27 January 1999 10:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
17025 rings a bell for me but no specifics pop up. I'm pretty lazy (or busy or something right now) but hell - I'll do a SEARCH here in the forum for 17025.

OK - I found my December query to which no one replied to... (Ah hemmmm....) I thought 17025 rang a bell.

If you learn anything more, do let us know. You might want to reply to the other thread. This on is getting pretty big (I try to keep them under 50 to 75K for those accessing with standard modems. I have enought pictures and other garbage as is.....).

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 01-27-99).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 28 January 1999 10:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:13:50 -0500
From: Jack Gale
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Interpretations from AIAG

G25 Group:

The following was issued by the IASG on 1/22/99 and is at the ASQ website at:

http://www.asq.org/standcert/qs-9000/sancl.html

This is the interpretation our customers needed and will give us, the providers, time to respond.

"Element 4.11 Control of Inspection, Measuring and Test Equipment

C2 Calibration Laboratory Requirements, (4.11.2.b.1) (1/22/99)

Due to a current lack of suppliers of accredited calibration services for calibration laboratories, compliance to QS-9000:1998 Third Edition laboratory requirements, 4.11.2.b.1, may be satisfied if the supplier has a documented plan to assure that, effective January 1, 2001, the supplier is fully in compliance with QS-9000:1998 Third Edition cl. 4.11.2.b.1 requirements.

More information is available in a QS-9000 Laboratory Requirements Self Study Guide available from AIAG at (USA) 248-358-3003 and on the AIAG website: http://www.AIAG.org/quality."


I now have to get back to my A2LA application package.

--
Jack Gale, ASQ-CQE
ESSCO Calibration Lab
(800) 325 - 2201
jackgale@ici.net

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 January 1999 02:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:48:27 -0500
From: Dave Walton
To: iso25@fasor.com
Subject: Re: A2LA vs. ISO Guide 25 (fwd)

My investigation of this same subject is that there are only two choices if you want accreditation to ISO Guide 25, NVLAP and A2LA. Depending on the scope you want accredited NVLAP will be much more expensive. A2LA has gotten very bogged down recently in its own bureaucracy so you may want to weigh more then just the assessment cost.

>>> Greg Gogates 01/28 8:29 PM >>>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:35:51 -0600
From: Mike Linn
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: A2LA vs. ISO Guide 25

I am presently tyring to determine which way to go for accreditation. A2LA or another registrar for Guide 25. I spoke with someone today that said the QS-9000 group will be "distancing themselves" from A2LA and its interpretation of Guide 25 and leaning toward a more "pure" ISO accreditation. And that other US interests are pushing for ANSI-Z540.

I know QS-9000 3rd ed. and the draft for ISO-9001 call for external labs to accredited to Guide 25 or other national equivelents, what are the pros and cons of Guide 25, A2LA and ANSI-Z540. What acceditation should we pursue, and not have to start over again when the system of choice is no longer recognised.

thanks

Mike Linn
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Birmingham, AL

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 January 1999 03:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:48:27 -0500
From: Dave Walton
To: iso25@fasor.com
Subject: Re: A2LA vs. ISO Guide 25 (fwd)

My investigation of this same subject is that there are only two choices if you want accreditation to ISO Guide 25, NVLAP and A2LA. Depending on the scope you want accredited NVLAP will be much more expensive. A2LA has gotten very bogged down recently in its own bureaucracy so you may want to weigh more then just the assessment cost.

------snippo-------

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:16:45 -0500
From: Diane Bolyard
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: A2LA vs. ISO Guide 25 (fwd)

Due to the large number of accreditations that must be performed there are certain registrars that have authorization to do the Guide 25 audits. In the clients that I am serivicing this means that they will have to participate in ISO/QS along with Guide 25 to use the registrar. It also means when you combine the two issues that it costs significantly less to do both (as opposed to one and then another individually). I trust the registrars that I use to perform good registrations, and know who I am working with, which leads me in that direction as well. Besides, it is rumored that the lead time to an A2LA audit is pretty great.

PS I heard rumor that in the next sanctioned interpretations that labs have two years to complete the Guide 25 accreditation but must have an action plan in place to get there.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 06 September 1999).]

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 30 January 1999 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
how about .....ummmmmmm....lets see.....An ISO9002 registration with "guide 25/ or other such words" as the scope/quality system requirement....then the registrar audits it !!! Hows that for a suggestion....LOL

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 03 September 1999 04:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:48:27 -0500
From: Dave Walton
To: iso25@fasor.com
Subject: Re: A2LA vs. ISO Guide 25 (fwd)

My investigation of this same subject is that there are only two choices if you want accreditation to ISO Guide 25, NVLAP and A2LA. Depending on the scope you want accredited NVLAP will be much more expensive. A2LA has gotten very bogged down recently in its own bureaucracy so you may want to weigh more then just the assessment cost.

------snippo-------

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:16:45 -0500
From: Diane Bolyard
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: A2LA vs. ISO Guide 25 (fwd)

Due to the large number of accreditations that must be performed there are certain registrars that have authorization to do the Guide 25 audits. In the clients that I am serivicing this means that they will have to participate in ISO/QS along with Guide 25 to use the registrar. It also means when you combine the two issues that it costs significantly less to do both (as opposed to one and then another individually). I trust the registrars that I use to perform good registrations, and know who I am working with, which leads me in that direction as well. Besides, it is rumored that the lead time to an A2LA audit is pretty great.

PS I heard rumor that in the next sanctioned interpretations that labs have two years to complete the Guide 25 accreditation but must have an action plan in place to get there.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 06 September 1999).]

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 06 September 1999 05:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The above is what is currently happening in the european sector re QS9K......works for me. Registrars will soon be auditing to the new standard to replace guide 25, but in the mean time...... one registrar I work with is training to the DIS already in anticipation...too much $$$ to let that one get away.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!