The International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) The International Accreditation Forum (IAF)

1
The International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC)The International
Accreditation Forum (IAF)

• Accreditation --
• Facilitating Global Trade
• by
• Peter Unger
• ILAC Chair
• BSCA Conference 5 June 2014

2
Accreditation in the TBT Agreement

• 6.1.1 adequate and enduring technical competence
  of the relevant conformity assessment bodies in
  the exporting Member, so that confidence in the
  continued reliability of their conformity
  assessment results can exist in this regard,
  verified compliance, for instance through
  accreditation, with relevant guides or
  recommendations issued by international
  standardizing bodies shall be taken into account
  as an indication of adequate technical
  competence

3
Accreditation to Support the Market
4
Peer Evaluation
ACCREDITATION
International Standards
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES
Standards / Regulatory requirements / Scheme
criteria
PRODUCT SERVICE PROVIDERS
CONFIDENCE
TRUST
ASSURANCE
PURCHASERS
GOVERNMENT
CONSUMERS
5
ILAC and IAF

• ILAC and IAFglobal networks of conformity
  assessment accreditation bodies
• Recognition of competent conformity assessment
  activities through global multi-lateral mutual
  recognition arrangements
• Harmonization of conformity assessment practices
• Promotion of accredited conformity assessment as
  an effective mechanism for providing confidence
  in goods and services

6
Global Vision

• Tested, inspected or certified once, accepted
  everywhere'
• Accredited once, accepted everywhere

7
Regional Cooperation Bodies

• The IAF and ILAC Arrangements are structured to
  build on existing and developing regional
  MLAs/MRAs established around the world

• The IAF MLA recognizes EA, PAC, IAAC
• The ILAC MRA recognizes EA, APLAC, IAAC

European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA)
Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (APLAC)
Inter-American Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC)
Southern African Development Community
Accreditation (SADCA)
Pacific Accreditation Cooperation (PAC)
African Accreditation Cooperation (AFRAC)
Arab Accreditation Cooperation (ARAC)
8
The International Picture
ARAC
AFRAC
SADCA Southern African Development Community
Accreditation
ARAC Arab
Accreditation Cooperation
9
Coverage of the ILAC MRA (October 2013)
10
Status of the ILAC MRA (March 2014)

• The ILAC network of members includes 148 bodies
  from 112 different economies (85 Full Members/MRA
  Signatories, 17 Associates, 17 Affiliates, 23
  Stakeholders, 6 Regional Cooperation Bodies)
• ILAC MRA covers testing, calibration and
  inspection
• Signatories represent about 95 of Global GDP
• 45,000 accredited laboratories
• About 7,500 accredited inspection bodies
• MRAs for accreditation of PTPs and RMPs underway

11
Coverage of the IAF MLA (August 2013)
IAF MLA Signatories
IAF Members not yet Signatories
12
Status of the IAF MLA

• 91 members (69 Accreditation Bodies, 18
  Association Members, 6 Regional Groups, 3
  Observers) 60 IAF MLA Signatories from 55
  economies
• Management Systems 53 accreditation bodies and
  EA, PAC IAAC
• ISO 9001 QMS 53 accreditation bodies and EA,
  PAC IAAC
• ISO 14001 EMS 49 accreditation bodies and EA,
  PAC IAAC
• ISO 22000 FSMS, ISO/IEC 27001 ISMS, ISO/IEC
  20000 ITSMS and ISO 13485 medical devices under
  development
• Product 51 accreditation bodies EA, PAC IAAC
• Global G.A.P, IFA CPCCs 26 accreditation bodies
• Persons under development
• GHG Verification Validation Bodies under
  development

13
The ILAC and IAF Arrangements

• Accreditation body members deemed competent
  through a peer evaluation process
• ISO/IEC 17011
• IAF-ILAC A series documents
• IAF MD documents ILAC P-series documents
• Signatories must recognize certificates and
  reports issued by organisations accredited by
  other Signatories
• Provides business with assurance that overseas
  bodies operate to the same standard.
• Removes technical barriers to trade by
  eliminating redundant conformity assessment

14
IAF/ILAC A1 Evaluation of a Region

• Two main sections two main purposes
• Requirements for a Region (Section 2)
• Flow Chart for a peer evaluation of a region
  (Section 3)

15
Typical Evaluation of a Region

• Visit to Secretariat Office(s)
• Witnessing two AB peer evaluations
• Observation of MLA Group Decision Making
• Report of findings to the IAF/ILAC Arrangement
  Management Committee(s)

16
IAF/ILAC A1 Evaluation of a Region

• All Regional Groups also provide a report each
  year to the respective IAF MLA Management
  Committee (MC) and/or ILAC Arrangement Management
  Committee (AMC) on their MLA and/or MRA
  activities. Such reports should include any joint
  activities, as outlined above and be provided to
  the next TL-R who will evaluate the Regional
  Group.

17
IAF/ILAC A2 Evaluation of an ABFull Evaluation

• Four to six days duration
• Three to seven team members
• Several assessments witnessed
• Summary report of findings at end of visit

18
IAF/ILAC A2 Evaluation of an ABSection 2.2
Supplementary Requirements

• Demonstrated competence and experience
• Acceptable routes for measurement traceability
• Proficiency testing requirements
• Arrangement obligations
• Promotion of the Arrangements
• Contribute to peer evaluations
• Cross-frontier policy

19
IAF/ILAC A2 Evaluation of an ABQualifications
of Evaluators

• Team members
• At least 3 years experience as staff member or
  assessor in a member accreditation body
• Evaluator training course completed
• English understood
• Team Leaders
• Senior AB staff
• Experience as a team member

20
IAF/ILAC A2 Evaluation of an ABFull Evaluation

• Four to six days duration
• Three to seven team members
• Several assessments witnessed
• Summary report of findings at end of visit

21
IAF/ILAC A2 Evaluation of an ABFull Evaluation
Report Process

• Summary report with Findings
• Draft full report
• Formal response by AB to findings
• Formal reaction of the evaluation team
• Often more than one iteration
• Follow-up visit possible
• Final report to the Arrangement group
• Decision by the Arrangement group

22
USA Specifiers of the Arrangements

• Consumer Product Safety Commission
• Federal Highway Administration
• U.S. Coast Guard
• General Services Administration
• Department of Defense
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Food and Drug Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency

23
Consumer Product Safety Commission

• Statement by Scott Hey, program manager of the
  CPSC Office of Hazard Identification and
  Reduction on the benefits of the ILAC MRA
• The MRA has had a tremendous impact on our
  group. With all the products from manufacturers
  around the world cribs and bunk beds from China
  and the United Kingdom, bike helmets and baby
  walkers from Taiwan and Italy knowing that they
  have all been through an accepted standard of
  testing from an accredited lab gives us a greater
  level of confidence in those products. It
  provides a sense of consistency in quality.

24
Environmental Protection Agency

• Statement by Eamon Monaghan, Program Integrity
  Lead, ENERGYSTAR on the reason for using the ILAC
  MRA
• We didnt have to develop and implement our own
  set of rules. Any kind of agency-specific rule
  creates costs or hassles for industry, and that
  was something we really wanted to avoid. We
  currently certify products in 65 categories, many
  of which are certified and tested overseas.
  Referencing the ILAC MRA took the EPA off the
  hook for developing a lot of criteria for labs or
  conducting our own lab oversight. And, by
  working with only ILAC signatories, we have the
  confidence that the labs have been appropriately
  assessed. We now recognize 27 ILAC-signatory
  accreditation bodies around the world.

25
Benefits for government and regulators

• Cost effective tool to support regulation
• Efficient monitoring

26
Benefits for industry

• Greater acceptance of products and services
  opening up markets
• Avoiding the costs of multiple testing,
  inspection or certification
• Efficient management of suppliers

27
Benefits for consumers

• Public confidence in goods and services despite
  complex global marketplace
• Reduces product failures

28
The Economics of Accreditation UKAS/British
Measurement and Test Association study March
2013

• Conformity assessment body benefits estimated to
  be 295 million pounds per annum
• Downstream commercial benefit estimated to be 320
  million pounds per annum

29
Contact Details