Taking responsibility for determination of conformity

It sometimes happens that an inspection body claims that it is not responsible for some of the results included in an inspection report as it derives from a subcontracted analysis (testing) which is not covered by the accredited scope. Does the inspection body have the right to include a disclaimer saying that it is not responsible for the result of this testing/analysis? Does it matter whether the activity is covered by the accredited scope or whether it is an inspection activity or not?

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

Answer:

The inspection body has to take responsibility for the whole chain, including any test results or inspection activities performed by subcontractors, if it wants to refer to its accredited status. However, the assessment of the accreditation body is limited to operations of the inspection body that are covered by the scope of accreditation. As long as the inspection body does not refer to its accredited status for work outside its scope of accreditation, these activities are of no concern to the accreditation body. If an inspection activity is reported under accreditation and it includes testing activities, the guidance provided in ILAC P15, 7.4.2a, and the rules in ILAC P8, chapters 8 and 9, apply. This is to say that if the outcome of the inspection is based on unaccredited results, then the report must include a disclaimer that the outcome of the inspection is not covered by the accreditation.

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.