FAQ6

Posted on by IAF CMC

Clause 4.1.6 uses the expression “separate and identifiable part of an organisation involved in certain activities” to describe inspection bodies of independence type B and the expression “identifiable but not necessarily separate part of an organisation involved certain activities” to describe inspection bodies of independence type C. What is the difference between being an identifiable part and being a separate part within an organization? How can this be proved or recognized?

STANDARD: ISO/IEC 17020  ·  CLAUSE: 4.1.6  ·  TOPIC: Assigning independence categories  

Answer:

For an inspection body to demonstrate that it is an identifiable and separate part of an organisation, the inspection body must be a separate section, department, division etc., within that organisation and the inspection staff and management must work in that separate part of the organisation. In case of a Type C inspection body, it is not a requirement for the inspection body to be a separate section, department, division of the organisation but it is a requirement that all those who are involved in inspection are identified by name so that it is quite clear who is involved in inspection activities. The documented organisation structure, job descriptions and records of personnel are some of the ways in which the inspection body can demonstrate that the inspection body is separate and /or identifiable.

FAQ5

Posted on by IAF CMC

A government inspection body inspecting imported goods and locally manufactured goods at the request of customers is also involved in quality assurance of locally manufactured goods. Can this inspection body be categorized as A or C under ISO/IEC 17020:2012?

STANDARD: ISO/IEC 17020  ·  CLAUSE: 4.1.6  ·  TOPIC: Maintaining independence  

Answer: The criteria for Type A independence relates to the ‘items’ inspected. Therefore, it is necessary to understand what ‘items’ are inspected by this inspection body and if the inspection body is involved in any activities that may conflict with their independence of judgment and integrity in relation to those inspection activities. If this inspection body is only involved in inspection and no other activities, then provided it meets all of the other requirements in Annex A of ISO/IEC 17020:2012 it could be a Type A inspection body. If, however, the quality assurance activities of locally manufactured goods involve activities other than inspection, then it would be necessary to establish if any of those other activities are in conflict with their inspection activities.

FAQ4

Posted on by IAF CMC

An inspection body applying for accreditation to ISO/IEC 17020 uses reference standards for checks and calibration of measurement equipment used in the field for performing its inspection activities. It has a non-accredited, in-house calibration department that provides the necessary calibration services for the reference standards. Is the in-house calibration of the reference standards allowed or not?

STANDARD: ISO/IEC 17020  ·  CLAUSE: 6.2.8  ·  TOPIC: Calibration of reference standards

Answer:

The requirement in the standard is for reference standards to be used for calibration only and for no other purpose. Secondly, the requirement is for the reference standards to be calibrated providing traceability to national or international standards. If an inspection body has its own in-house calibration facility then the inspection body should demonstrate its competence to perform such calibration using the relevant clauses of ISO/IEC 17025.

FAQ3

Posted on by IAF CMC

Can an organization undertaking non-destructive testing be classified as an inspection body?

STANDARD: ISO/IEC 17020  ·  CLAUSE: 3.5  ·  TOPIC: Defining inspection body 

Answer:

Bodies performing non-destructive testing activities may be accredited using either ISO/IEC 17025 or ISO/IEC 17020. EA (European co-operation for Accreditation) has published a document, EA-4/15 Accreditation for Non Destructive Testing, to ensure that, whichever route is chosen, accreditation is carried out using the same technical criteria.

FAQ2

Posted on by IAF CMC

Is there a significant difference between the terms “responsibility” and “liability” as used in ISO/IEC 17020?

STANDARD: ISO/IEC 17020  ·  CLAUSE: 6.3.3  ·  TOPIC: Taking responsibility for determination of conformity 

Answer:

According to clause 6.3.3 of ISO/IEC 17020:2012 the inspection body is required to take responsibility for any determination of conformity. This clause does not require the inspection body to take any liability for any determination of conformity made by the inspection body. However, it is possible that any contractual conditions agreed between the parties refer to liabilities arising from its inspection activities. The term ‘liabilities’ is used in ISO 17020:2012 in clause 5.1.4 only. The word liability can only be understood when related to the legal and contractual system in which the inspection body operates. If an organization is “liable” for something it can be legally required to pay for the consequences. This is completely different from “responsibility” which does not refer to any legal obligation to pay for the consequences. The concept of responsibility is referenced many times in ISO/IEC 17020 and refers to the person or organization that has a duty to perform. So, for example, clause 5.2.5 states, “The IB shall have available one or more person(s) as technical manager(s) who have overall responsibility to ensure that the inspection activities are carried out in accordance with this International Standard. If inspection activities are found not to have been carried out in accordance with the Standard the person having responsibility is to blame, even if they did not personally perform the non-compliant actions. Similarly, in clause 6.3.3 the inspection body is responsible for the determination of conformity even if it has subcontracted some of the activities, such as testing. The duty (responsibility) referred to here is a duty of the inspection body to its client for the inspection result. If the inspection result proves to be unreliable the inspection body is to blame (responsible), even if it can be proved that the subcontracted activities were the cause of the unreliable determination of conformity. Determination of blame (responsibility) for an action may or may not result in legal liability to pay for the consequences, depending on the legal system in the economy concerned and any contractual arrangements that may be involved.

FAQ1

Posted on by IAF CMC

An inspection body applying for accreditation to ISO/IEC 17020 uses measurement equipment in performing its inspection activities. It has a non-accredited, in-house calibration department which provides the necessary calibration services for the measurement equipment used in the field. Is the in-house calibration of the measurement equipment used in the field allowed or not?

STANDARD: ISO/IEC 17020  ·  CLAUSE: 6.2.7  ·  TOPIC: Calibration of measurement equipment

Answer:

ISO/IEC 17020 does not specify that calibration should be provided externally or in- house. The requirement is that any equipment that has a significant influence on the on the results of inspection shall be calibrated before being put into service and there after calibrated to an established programme. Also, the requirement is for the equipment to be calibrated for measurements to be traceable to national or international standards, where available. If an inspection body has its own in- house calibration facility then the inspection body should demonstrate its competence to perform such calibration using the relevant clauses of ISO/IEC 17025.