KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) :IAF Criteria issue no.2.pdf · KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF...

of 64 /64
KOREA ACCREDITATION BOARD KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria Document No.: KAB-A-02 Issue No.: 2 Issue Date: April 15, 2015

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) :IAF Criteria issue no.2.pdf · KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF...

  • KOREA ACCREDITATION BOARD

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria

    Document No.: KAB-A-02 Issue No.: 2 Issue Date: April 15, 2015

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 2 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Contents 1. Certification of Multiple Sites Based on Sampling (MD 1:2007) 2. The Transfer of Accredited Certification of Management Systems (IAF MD 2:2007) 3. Advanced Surveillance and Recertification Procedures (IAF MD 3:2008) 4. The use of Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques (“CAAT”) for Accredited Certification of Management Systems (IAF MD 4:2008) 5. Duration of QMS and EMS Audits (IAF MD 5: 2013) 6. Harmonization of Sanctions to be applied to Conformity Assessment Bodies (MD 7:2010) 7. Assessment of certification body management of competence in accordance with ISO/IEC17021:2011 (MD 10:2013) 8. The application of ISO/IEC 17021 for audits of integrated management systems (MD 8:2011) 9. Assessment of certification activities for cross frontier accreditation (MD 12:2013) [Annexes] A. IAF-ILAC JGA Sydney Resolution 7 – Certification to accreditation standards B. Examples of intended results from certification functions – INFORMATIVE C. Reduction of audit time D. Examples of the type of relationships a CAB may have with its foreign entities and subsidiaries – INFORMATIVE Additional Clause

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 3 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Foreword

    1. This guide prepared by KAB to supplement requirements for bodies that provide audits and certification services provides details necessary for KAB’s accreditation activities in accordance with ISO/IEC 17011 (Conformity assessment -- General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies) and IAF documents.

    2. Certification bodies that wish to be accredited by KAB or maintain accreditation shall comply with the following criteria as well as the applicable accreditation criteria based on ISO/IEC 17021:2011(Conformity assessment -- Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems) or ISO/IEC 17024 (Conformity assessment -- General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons):

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (1) : KAB Criteria (KAB-A-01)

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria (KAB-A-02)

    3. IAF published IAF Guidance Documents (GD) and Mandatory Documents (MD) to ensure that accreditation programs are conducted in a consistent and equal way when accreditation bodies accredit certification bodies. Certification bodies accredited by KAB which is an IAF signatory member shall comply with IAF GDs and MDs for the consistent application of international standards.

    4. The term “shall” is used throughout this document are mandatory. Although not mandatory, the term “should” is used to indicate recognised means of meeting the requirements of Mandatory documents set out by IAF.

    5. If a certification body does not follow the criteria developed by KAB or IAF exactly, it may obtain or maintain accreditation only when it can justify its measures satisfy the intention of the criteria. This criteria can be revised anytime as international standards or IAF’s criteria are revised.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 4 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Chapter 1. Certification of Multiple Sites Based on Sampling (MD 1:2007) This document is mandatory for the consistent application of Clause 9.1.5. of ISO/IEC 17021:2006 and this document does not supersede any of the requirements in that standard. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0.1 This document is for the audit and, if appropriate, the certification of management systems in organizations with a network of sites to ensure that the audit provides adequate confidence in the conformity of the management system to the relevant standard across all sites listed and that the audit is both practical and feasible in economic and operative terms.

    1.0.2 Normally initial audits for certification and subsequent surveillance and recertification audits should take place at every site of the organization that is to be covered by the certification. However, where an organization’s activity subject to certification is carried out in a similar manner at different sites, all under the organization’s authority and control, a certification body may put into operation appropriate procedures for sampling the sites at the initial audit and subsequent surveillance and recertification audits. This document addresses the conditions under which this is acceptable for accredited certification bodies including the calculation of sample size and audit duration. 1.0.3 This document does not apply to the audits of organizations that have multi-sites where fundamentally dissimilar processes or activities are used at the different sites, or a combination of sites, even though they may be under the same management system. The conditions under which certification bodies can make any reduction in the normal full audit of every site in these circumstances have to be justified at each site where a reduction is proposed. 1.0.4 This document is applicable to accredited certification bodies that employ sampling in their audit and certification of multi-site organizations. Nevertheless an accredited certification body may exceptionally deviate from this document under condition it is able to produce relevant justifications. These justifications shall, under evaluation by the accreditation body, demonstrate that the same level of confidence in the conformity of the management system across all the sites listed can be obtained. 1.1 DEFINITIONS

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 5 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    1.1.1 Organization The term organization is used to designate any company or other organization owning a management system subject to audit and certification. 1.1.2 Site A site is a permanent location where an organization carries out work or a service. 1.1.3 Temporary Site A temporary site is one set up by an organization in order to perform specific work or a service for a finite period of time and which will not become a permanent site. (eg. construction site). 1.1.4 Additional Sites A new site or group of sites that will be added to an existing certified multi-site network. 1.1.5 Multi-site Organization A multi-site organization is defined as an organization having an identified central function (hereafter referred to as a central office – but not necessarily the headquarters of the organization) at which certain activities are planned, controlled or managed and a network of local offices or branches (sites) at which such activities are fully or partially carried out. 1.2 APPLICATION 1.2.1 Site 1.2.1.1 A site could include all land on which activities under the control of an organization at a given location are carried out including any connected or associated storage of raw materials, by-products, intermediate products, end products and waste material, and any equipment or infrastructure involved in the activities, whether or not fixed. Alternatively, where required by law, definitions laid down in national or local licensing regimes shall apply. 1.2.1.2 Where it is not practicable to define a location (e.g. for services), the coverage of the certification should take into account the organization’s headquarters activities as well as delivery of its services. Where relevant, the certification body may decide that the certification audit will be carried out only where the organization delivers its services. In such cases all the interfaces with its central office shall be identified and audited. 1.2.2 Temporary Site 1.2.2.1 Temporary sites that are covered by the organization's management system may be

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 6 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    subject to audit on a sample basis to provide evidence of the operation and effectiveness of the management system. They may, however be included within the scope of a multi-site certification subject to agreement between the certification body and the client organization. Where included in the scope, such sites shall be identified as temporary. 1.2.3 Multi-site Organization 1.2.3.1 A multi-site organization need not be a unique legal entity, but all sites shall have a legal or contractual link with the central office of the organization and be subject to a common management system, which is laid down, established and subject to continuous surveillance and internal audits by the central office. This means that the central office has rights to require that the sites implement corrective actions when needed in any site. Where applicable this should be set out in the formal agreement between the central office and the sites. Examples of possible multi-site organizations are: ㆍOrganizations operating with franchises ㆍManufacturing companies with a network of sales offices (this document would apply to the sales network) ㆍService companies with multiple sites offering a similar service ㆍCompanies with multiple branches 1.3 ELIGIBILITY OF AN ORGANIZATION FOR SAMPLING 1.3.1 The processes at all the sites have to be substantially of the same kind and have to be operated to similar methods and procedures. Where some of the sites under consideration conduct similar, but fewer processes than others, they may be eligible for inclusion under multi-site certification providing that the sites(s) which conduct the most processes, or critical processes are subject to full audit. 1.3.2 Organizations which conduct their business through linked processes in different locations are also eligible for sampling providing all other provisions of this document are met. Where processes in each location are not similar but are clearly linked, the sampling plan shall include at least one example of each process conducted by the organization (eg. fabrication of electronic components in one location, assembly of the same components – by the same company in several other locations). 1.3.3 The organization’s management system shall be under a centrally controlled and administered plan and be subject to central management review. All the relevant sites (including the central administration function) shall be subject to the organization’s internal audit program and all shall have been audited in accordance with that program prior to the

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 7 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    certification body starting its audit. 1.3.4 It shall be demonstrated that the central office of the organization has established a management system in accordance with the relevant management system standard under audit and that the whole organization meets the requirements of the standard. This shall include consideration of relevant regulations. 1.3.5 The organization should demonstrate its ability to collect and analyse data (including but not limited to the items listed below) from all sites including the central office and its authority and also demonstrate its authority and ability to initiate organizational change if required: ㆍSystem documentation and system changes; ㆍManagement review; ㆍComplaints; ㆍEvaluation of corrective actions; ㆍInternal audit planning and evaluation of the results; ㆍChanges to aspects and associated impacts for environmental management systems (EMS) and ㆍDifferent legal requirements. 1.3.6 Not all organizations fulfilling the definition of “multi-site organization” will be eligible for sampling. 1.3.7 Not all management systems standards are suitable for consideration for multi-site certification. For example, multi-site sampling would be unsuitable where the audit of variable local factors is a requirement of the standard. Specific rules apply also for some schemes, for example those including automotive (TS 16949) and aerospace (AS 9100 series) and the requirements of such schemes shall take precedence. 1.3.8 Certification bodies should have documented procedures to restrict such sampling where site sampling is inappropriate to gain sufficient confidence in the effectiveness of the management system under audit. Such restrictions should be defined by the certification body with respect to: ㆍScope sectors or activities (i.e. based on the assessment of risks or complexity associated with that sector or activity); ㆍSize of sites eligible for multi-site audit; ㆍVariations in the local implementation of the management system such as the need for frequent recourse to the use of plans within the management system to address different

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 8 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    activities or different contractual or regulatory systems; ㆍUse of temporary sites that operate under the management system of the organization and which are not to be included within the scope of certification. 1.4 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CERTIFICATION BODY 1.4.0.1. The certification body shall provide information to the organization about the application of this document and the relevant management system standards before starting the audit process, and should not proceed if any of the provisions are not met. Before starting the audit process, the certification body should inform the organization that the certificate will not be issued if during an initial audit nonconformities are found. 1.4.1 Contract Review 1.4.1.1 The certification body’s procedures should ensure that the initial contract review identifies the complexity and scale of the activities covered by the management system subject to certification and any differences between sites as the basis for determining the level of sampling. 1.4.1.2 The certification body shall identify the central function of the organization with which it has a legally enforceable agreement for the provision of certification activities. 1.4.1.3 The certification body shall check, in each individual case, to what extent sites of an organization operate substantially the same kind of processes according to the same procedures and methods. See clause 1.3.1 for sites which conduct fewer, but similar processes than other sites and clause 1.3.2 for sites involving linked processes. Only after a positive examination by the certification body that all the sites proposed for inclusion in the multi-site exercise meet the eligibility provisions may the sampling procedure be applied to the individual sites. 1.4.1.4 If all the sites of a service organization where the activity subject to certification is performed are not ready to be submitted for certification at the same time, the organization shall be required to inform the certification body in advance of the sites that it wants to be included in the certification and those which are to be excluded. 1.4.2 Audit 1.4.2.1 The certification body shall have documented procedures to deal with audits under its multi-site procedure. Such procedures shall establish the way the certification body satisfies itself that the same management system governs the activities at all the sites, is actually

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 9 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    applied to all the sites and that all the eligibility criteria for the organization in clause 1.3 above are met. This requirement also applies to a management system where electronic documents, process control or other electronic processes are used. The certification body shall justify and record the rationale for proceeding with a multi-site approach. 1.4.2.2 If more than one audit team is involved in the audit or surveillance of the network, the certification body should designate a unique audit leader whose responsibility is to consolidate the findings from all the audit teams and to produce a synthesis report. 1.4.3 Nonconformities 1.4.3.1 When nonconformities, as defined in ISO/IEC 17021 clause 9.1.15 (b), are found at any individual site, either through the organization’s internal auditing or from auditing by the certification body, investigation should take place to determine whether the other sites may be affected. Therefore, the certification body should require the organization to review the nonconformities to determine whether they indicate an overall system deficiency applicable to other sites or not. If they are found to do so, corrective action should be performed and verified both at the central office and at the individual affected sites. If they are found not to do so, the organization should be able to demonstrate to the certification body the justification for limiting its follow-up corrective action. 1.4.3.2 The certification body shall require evidence of these actions and increase its sampling frequency and/or the size of sample until it is satisfied that control is re-established. 1.4.3.3 At the time of the decision making process, if any site has a nonconformity, as defined in ISO/IEC 17021 clause 9.1.15 (b), certification shall be denied to the whole network of listed sites pending satisfactory corrective action. 1.4.3.4 It shall not be admissible that, in order to overcome the obstacle raised by the existence of a nonconformity at a single site, the organization seeks to exclude from the scope the "problematic" site during the certification process. Such exclusion can only be agreed in advance (See clause 1.4.1.4). 1.4.4 Certification Documents 1.4.4.1 Certification documents can be issued covering multiple sites provided that each site included in the scope of certification has either been individually audited by the certification body or audited using the sample approach outlined in this document.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 10 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    1.4.4.2 The certification body shall provide certification documents to the certified client by any means it chooses. Such certification documents shall comply in all respects with ISO/IEC 17021. 1.4.4.3 These documents shall contain the name and address of the central office of the organization and a list of all the sites to which the certification documents relate. The scope or other reference on these documents shall make clear that the certified activities are performed by the network of sites on the list. If the certification scope of the sites is only issued as part of the general scope of the organization, its applicability to all the sites shall be clearly stated. . Where temporary sites are included in the scope, such sites shall be identified as temporary in the certification documents. 1.4.4.4 Certification documents may be issued to the organization for each site covered by the certification under condition that they contain the same scope, or a sub-scope of that scope, and include a clear reference to the main certification documents. 1.4.4.5 The certification documentation will be withdrawn in its entirety, if the central office or any of the sites does not fulfill the necessary provisions for the maintenance of the certification. 1.4.4.6 The list of sites shall be kept updated by the certification body. To this effect, the certification body shall request the organization to inform it about the closure of any of the sites covered by the certification. Failure to provide such information will be considered by the certification body as a misuse of the certification, and it should act consequently according to its procedures. 1.4.4.7 Additional sites can be added to an existing certification as the result of surveillance or recertification activities or enhancement of scope. The certification body shall have documented procedures for the addition of new sites. 1.5 SAMPLING 1.5.1 Methodology 1.5.1.1 The sample should be partly selective based on the factors set out below and partly non-selective, and should result in a representative range of different sites being selected, without excluding the random element of sampling. 1.5.1.2 At least 25% of the sample should be selected at random.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 11 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    1.5.1.3 Taking into account the provisions mentioned below, the remainder should be selected so that the differences among the sites selected over the period of validity of the certificate is as large as possible. 1.5.1.4 The site selection may include among others the following aspects: ㆍResults of internal site audits and management reviews or previous certification audits; ㆍRecords of complaints and other relevant aspects of corrective and preventive action; ㆍSignificant variations in the size of the sites; ㆍVariations in shift patterns and work procedures; ㆍComplexity of the management system and processes conducted at the sites; ㆍModifications since the last certification audit; ㆍMaturity of the management system and knowledge of the organization; ㆍEnvironmental issues and extent of aspects and associated impacts for environmental (EMS) management systems; ㆍDifferences in culture, language and regulatory requirements; and ㆍGeographical dispersion. 1.5.1.5 This selection does not have to be done at the start of the audit process. It can also be done once the audit at the central office has been completed. In any case, the central office shall be informed of the sites to be included in the sample. This can be on relatively short notice, but should allow adequate time for preparation for the audit. 1.5.2 Size Of Sample 1.5.2.1 The certification body shall have a documented procedure for determining the sample to be taken when auditing sites as part of the audits and certification of a multi-site organization. This should take into account all the factors described in this document. 1.5.2.2 The certification body shall have records on each application of multi-site sampling justifying it is operating in accordance with this document. 1.5.2.3 The following calculation is an example based on the example of a low to medium risk activity with less than 50 employees at each site. The minimum number of sites to be visited per audit is: ㆍInitial audit: the size of the sample should be the square root of the number of remote sites: (y=√x ), rounded to the upper whole number. ㆍSurveillance audit: the size of the annual sample should be the square root of the number of remote sites with 0.6 as a coefficient (y=0.6 √x), rounded to the upper whole number.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 12 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    ㆍRe-certification audit: the size of the sample should be the same as for an initial audit. Nevertheless, where the management system has proved to be effective over a period of three years, the size of the sample could be reduced by a factor 0.8, i.e.: (y=0.8 √x), rounded to the upper whole number. 1.5.2.4 The certification body should define within its management system the risk levels of activities as applied above 1.5.2.5 The central office shall be audited during every initial certification and recertification audit and at least annually as part of surveillance. 1.5.2.6 The size or frequency of the sample should be increased where the certification body’s risk analysis of the activity covered by the management system subject to certification indicates special circumstances in respect of factors such as: ㆍThe size of the sites and number of employees (eg. more than 50 employees on a site); ㆍThe complexity or risk level of the activity and of the management system; ㆍVariations in working practices(eg. shift working); ㆍVariations in activities undertaken; ㆍSignificance and extent of aspects and associated impacts for environmental management systems (EMS); ㆍRecords of complaints and other relevant aspects of corrective and preventive action; ㆍAny multinational aspects; and ㆍResults of internal audits and management review. 1.5.2.7 When the organization has a hierarchical system of branches (e.g. head (central) office, national offices, regional offices, local branches), the sampling model for initial audit as defined above applies to each level. Example: 1 head office: visited at each audit cycle (initial or surveillance or recertification) 4 National offices: sample = 2: minimum 1 at random 27 regional offices: sample = 6: minimum 2 at random 1700 local branches: sample = 42: minimum 11 at random. 1.5.3 Audit Times 1.5.3.1 The audit time to spend for each individual site is another important element to consider, and the certification body shall be prepared to justify the time spent on multi-site

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 13 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    audits in terms of its overall policy for allocation of audit time. 1.5.3.2 The number of man-days per site, including the central office, should be calculated for each site using the most recently published IAF document for the calculation of man-days for the relevant standard. 1.5.3.3 Reductions can be applied to take into account the clauses that are not relevant to the central office and/or the local sites. Reasons for the justification of such reductions shall be recorded by the certification body. Note: Sites which carry out the most or critical processes are not subject to reductions (clause 1.3.1). 1.5.3.4 The total time expended on initial assessment and surveillance is the total sum of the time spent at each site plus the central office and should never be less than that which would have been calculated for the size and complexity of the operation if all the work had been undertaken at a single site (i.e. with all the employees of the company in the same site). 1.5.4 Additional Sites 1.5.4.1 On the application of a new group of sites to join an already certified multi-site network, each new group of sites should be considered as an independent set for the determination of the sample size. After inclusion of the new group in the certificate, the new sites should be cumulated to the previous ones for determining the sample size for future surveillance or recertification audits.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 14 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Chapter 2. The Transfer of Accredited Certification of Management Systems (IAF MD 2:2007) This document is mandatory for the consistent application of Clause 9.1.1. of ISO/IEC 17021:2006 and this document does not supersede any of the requirements in that standard. 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0.1 This document provides normative criteria on the transfer of accredited management system certification between certification bodies. The criteria may also be applicable in the case of acquisitions of certification bodies accredited by an IAF MLA signatory. 2.0.2 The objective of this document is to assure the maintenance of the integrity of accredited management system certifications issued by one certification body if subsequently transferred to another such body. 2.0.3 The document provides minimum criteria for the transfer of certification. Certification bodies may implement procedures or actions which are more stringent than those contained herein provided that a client organization's freedom to choose a certification body is not unduly or unfairly constrained. 2.1 DEFINITION 2.1.1 Transfer of Certification The transfer of certification is defined as the recognition of an existing and valid management system certification, granted by one accredited certification body, (hereinafter referred to as the “issuing certification body”), by another accredited certification body, (hereinafter referred to as the “accepting certification body”) for the purpose of issuing its own certification. Note: Multiple certification, (concurrent certification by more than one certification body), does not fall under the definition above, and is not encouraged by IAF. 2.2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 2.2.1 Accreditation Only certifications which are covered by an accreditation of an IAF MLA signatory shall be eligible for transfer. Organizations holding certifications that are not covered by such

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 15 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    accreditations shall be treated as new clients. 2.2.2 Pre-Transfer Review A competent person from the accepting certification body shall carry out a review of the certification of the prospective client. This review shall be conducted by means of a documentation review and should, normally, include a visit to the prospective client. Reasons for not conducting a visit shall be fully justified and documented and a visit shall be conducted if no contact can be made with the issuing certification body. The review should cover the following aspects and its findings shall be fully documented: (i) confirmation that the client’s certified activities fall within the accredited scope of the accepting certification body; (ii) the reasons for seeking a transfer; (iii) that the site or sites wishing to transfer certification hold an accredited certification that is valid in terms of authenticity, duration and scope of activities covered by the management system certification. If practical, the validity of certification and the status of outstanding nonconformities should be verified with the issuing certification body unless it has ceased trading. Where it has not been possible to communicate with the issuing certification body, the accepting certification body shall record the reasons; (iv). A consideration of the last certification or recertification audit reports, subsequent surveillance reports and any outstanding nonconformities that may arise from them. This consideration shall also include any other available, relevant documentation regarding the certification process i.e. handwritten notes, checklists. If the last certification, recertification or subsequent surveillance audit reports are not made available or if the surveillance audit is overdue then the organisation shall be treated as a new client; (v) complaints received and action taken; (vi) the stage in the current certification cycle. See Clause 2.2.3.4 of this document; and (vii) any current engagement by the organisation with regulatory bodies in respect of legal compliance. 2.2.3 Certification 2.2.3.1 Normally, only valid accredited certification should be transferred. In cases where certification has been granted by a certification body which has ceased trading or whose accreditation has expired, been suspended or withdrawn, the accepting certification body may consider such a certification for transfer at its discretion. In such cases, before it proceeds with the transfer, the accepting certification body shall obtain agreement from the accreditation

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 16 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    body, whose mark it intends to place on the certificate. In the case of acquisitions the acquiring certification body should, where practical, fulfil the contractual obligations of the acquired certification body. 2.2.3.2 Certification which is known to have been suspended or under threat of suspension shall not be accepted for transfer. If the accepting certification body has not been able to verify the status of the certification with the issuing certification body, the organisation shall be required to confirm that the certificate is not suspended or under threat of suspension. 2.2.3.3 Outstanding nonconformities should be closed out, if practical, with the issuing certification body, before transfer. Otherwise they shall be closed out by the accepting certification body. 2.2.3.4 If no further outstanding or potential problems are identified by the pre-transfer review a certification may be issued following the normal decision making process. The programme of ongoing surveillance should be based on the previous certification regime unless the accepting certification body has conducted an initial or recertification audit as a result of the review. 2.2.3.5 Where doubt continues to exist, after the pre-transfer review, as to the adequacy of a current or previously held certification, the accepting certification body shall, depending upon the extent of doubt, either: ㆍtreat the applicant as a new client or ㆍconduct an audit concentrating on identified problem areas. The decision as to the action required will depend upon the nature and extent of any problems found and shall be explained to the organization and the justification for the decision shall be documented and the records maintained by the certification body.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 17 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Chapter 3. IAF Mandatory Document for Advanced Surveillance and Recertification Procedures (IAF MD 3:2008) This document provides normative criteria for advanced surveillance and recertification procedures (ASRP) for consistent application of clause 9.1.1 of ISO/IEC 17021:2006 for determining subsequent adjustments to the audit program. This document addresses only Quality Management Systems (QMS) and Environmental Managements Systems (EMS), in which IAF members have had experience of implementing ASRP or its predecessor methodologies. The use of ASRP is not mandatory, but if an accreditation body wishes to permit their accredited certification body and its client(s) to opt for the use of ASRP, it is a requirement of IAF that the certification body and its client(s) conform to this document and be able to demonstrate conformity to the accreditation body. 3.0 INTRODUCTION 3.0.1 For a client organization that has established confidence in its management system (QMS and/or EMS) by consistently demonstrating effectiveness over a period of time, the certification body, in consultation with the organization, may choose to apply the Advanced Surveillance and Recertification Procedures (ASRP) provided for in this document. Such an advanced surveillance and recertification program may place greater (but not total) reliance on the organization’s internal audit and management review processes, include targeted surveillance topics, take into account specific design input from the organization and/or use other methods as appropriate, to demonstrate conformity of the management system. 3.0.2 The objective of this document is to assure the provision of more effective and efficient audits to organizations that have a proven performance record while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the accredited management system certificates they hold. 3.0.3 This document states minimum requirements for the application of the ASRP. Certification bodies may implement procedures or actions which are more stringent than those contained herein provided that an organization's justifiable request for the ASRP is not unduly or unfairly constrained. 3.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 3.1.1 Prerequisite In order to utilize the ASRP, the certification body shall first demonstrate to an IAF MLA

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 18 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    signatory accreditation body: a) That it has been operating an accredited certification scheme for the relevant management system (QMS and/or EMS) for a minimum of one complete accreditation cycle. b) That it is competent to design an ASRP program for each individual organization in the relevant management system (QMS and/or EMS), in accordance with the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 clause 7.3 and using the design input criteria mentioned in clause 3.1.3.2 below. NOTE: Reference is made here to ISO 9001 since this specifies the requirements for the certification body to design a program for ASRP regardless of whether it is operating certification of QMS or EMS. 3.1.2 Accreditation Scope The competence of the certification body to meet clause 3.1.1 (b) above shall be assessed by the accreditation body after which, if successful, specific reference to the approval for ASRP for QMS and/or EMS, as appropriate, shall be included in the certification body’s accreditation scope. 3.1.3 Eligibility and Design Input Criteria The certification body shall inform the accreditation body prior to every new utilization of ASRP for each specific organization, and shall be able to demonstrate that the following criteria in clauses 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 have been satisfied: 3.1.3.1 Eligibility Criteria a) The certification body shall confirm that the organization’s management system has been in demonstrated conformity with the requirements of the applicable standard(s) for a period of at least one complete certification cycle including initial, surveillance and recertification audits. NOTE: The certification body may base this confirmation of demonstrated conformity on the outcome of the first recertification audit (non-ASRP) of the organization conducted at the end of a three-year certification cycle. b) All nonconformities raised during the certification cycle immediately prior to the utilization of ASRP shall have been successfully resolved. c) For an EMS, the certification body shall confirm that the organization has established compliance with applicable legal requirements and has not had any sanctions imposed by the relevant regulatory authority(ies) for the period of a) above.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 19 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    d) The certification body shall have agreed suitable performance indicators with the organization, on which to judge the ongoing effectiveness of the management system, and shall ensure that the organization is consistently meeting agreed performance targets. (i) For a QMS, these performance indicators shall address, as a minimum, the organization’s demonstrated ability to consistently provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory requirements (see ISO 9001:2000 clause 1.1), and shall incorporate requirements for the continual improvement of the effectiveness of the QMS. NOTE: For a QMS, “indicator” means the characteristic to be measured and “target” means the quantitative/qualitative requirements to be met. (ii) For an EMS, these performance indicators shall address, as a minimum, the organization’s demonstrated ability to achieve its environmental policy, objectives and targets and comply with applicable legal and other requirements related to its environmental aspects (see ISO 14001:2004 clause 4.3.2), and shall incorporate requirements for the continual improvement and prevention of pollution. NOTE: For an EMS, “indicator” means the characteristic to be measured and “target” used in the context of performance target means the quantitative/qualitative requirements to be met, which is considered to be identical with “environmental target” as defined in ISO 14001. e) The certification body shall have enforceable arrangements with the organization to provide for access to relevant information. For a QMS, this information is all customer satisfaction data collected or otherwise available. For an EMS, this information is all relevant communication from external interested parties, and in particular the relevant regulatory authority(ies). When it becomes necessary for the certification body to communicate directly with the source of such information in order to validate the information, mutually agreed confidentiality policies and procedures shall be applied. f) The certification body shall verify that the organization’s internal audit process is being managed in accordance with the guidance of ISO 19011, with particular reference to auditor competence defined in clause 7. The internal audit process shall be sufficiently coordinated and integrated so as to provide an evaluation of the management system as a whole, not only the performance of individual components. g) The certification body shall have contractually enforceable arrangements to enable it to increase the scope, frequency and duration of its audits in the event of a deterioration of the

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 20 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    organization’s ability to meet agreed performance targets. 3.1.3.2 Design Input Criteria In addition to organization-specific input criteria, the design of each individual ASRP shall address the following: a) The frequency and duration of the certification body audits shall be sufficient to allow the certification body to conform with this criteria document including the following b) and c), among others. For each proposed utilization of ASRP, the certification body shall determine the base level (non-ASRP) auditor time using relevant IAF Guidance or Normative Criteria Documents, and, if applicable, IAF MD 1 for sampling of multi-sites. If the certification body plans an individual ASRP program that reduces the auditor time to less than 70% of this base-level, the certification body shall justify such reductions and seek specific approval from the accreditation body prior to its implementation. NOTE: IAF Mandatory Documents applicable to auditor time for QMS and EMS are under development. Until such documents become available, Annex 2 of IAF GD2 (and, where applicable, Annex 3) and Annex 1 of IAF GD6 (and, where applicable, clause G5.3.6) should continue to be applied to define the total audit time (Phase 1 + Phase 2). b) In addition to auditing a statistically significant number of samples of the organization’s management system processes to confirm the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal audit process, the certification body itself shall continue to carry out the following activities at each on-site surveillance and recertification audit, as a minimum (with other activities defined by the ASRP; see clause 4.1.4 below): ㆍinterview top management and the management representative; ㆍevaluate management review inputs and outputs, including a verification of the organization’s ability to meet the agreed performance targets; ㆍreview the internal audit process, including the procedures and records of internal audits, and the competence of internal auditors; and ㆍreview corrective and preventive actions plans, and verify their effective implementation. c) The certification body shall ensure that all the requirements for accredited certification (including the requirements of ISO/IEC 17021:2006 and any applicable sector scheme) continue to be met.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 21 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    3.1.4 Design Output The design output for each application of the certification body’s ASRP program shall include the following (a) – (f): a) The extent to which the certification body will utilize the organization’s internal audit and management review processes to complement the certification body’s activities; b) Criteria for witnessing the organization’s internal audits, including sampling of both auditors and processes to be audited; c) Criteria for accepting and monitoring the competence of the organization’s internal auditors and the method of reporting internal audit results; d) Criteria for ongoing adjustments to the audit program, taking into account the organization’s demonstrated ability over time to meet the agreed performance targets; e) The components of the management system that will necessarily be audited by the certification body at each surveillance and recertification audit (see clause 3.1.3.2 b); and f) Specific competence criteria for certification body auditors and, where applicable, for technical experts. 3.1.5 Certificates The certification body shall not differentiate between ASRP and non-ASRP methodologies on the certificates it issues.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 22 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Chapter 4. The use of Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques (“CAAT”) for Accredited Certification of Management Systems (IAF MD 4:2008) This mandatory document is to provide for the consistent application of ISO/IEC 17021:2006 when computer assisted auditing techniques are used as part of the audit methodology. The use of CAAT is not mandatory, but if a certification body and its client opt to use CAAT, it is mandatory that they conform to this document and are able to demonstrate conformity to the accreditation body. 4.0 INTRODUCTION 4.0.1 As information and communication technologies become ever-more sophisticated, it is important for certification bodies to be able to use “Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques” to enhance audit effectiveness and efficiency, and to support and maintain the integrity of the audit process. NOTE: Guidance on the use of Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques can be obtained from the website of the ISO/IAF Auditing Practices Group www.iso.org/tc176/ISO9001AuditingPracticesGroup 4.0.2 Such “Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques” (“CAAT”) may include, for example: ㆍTeleconferencing, ㆍWeb meetings, ㆍInteractive web-based communications, ㆍRemote electronic access to the management system documentation and/or management system processes. 4.0.3 The objectives for the effective application of CAAT are: a) To provide a methodology that is sufficiently flexible and non-prescriptive in nature to satisfy the needs of industry, by allowing client organizations and their respective certification bodies to use CAAT to enhance the conventional audit process, and b) To ensure that adequate controls are in place with sufficient accreditation body oversight to avoid abuses and to prevent excessive commercial pressures that could compromise the integrity of the certification process.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 23 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    4.1 REQUIREMENTS 4.1.1 Confidentiality In accordance with ISO/IEC 17021, clause 8.5.1, the security and confidentiality of electronic or electronically-transmitted information is particularly important when a certification body is using CAAT. The certification body should agree on mutually acceptable information security measures with its client before using CAAT. 4.1.2 Process requirements 4.1.2.1 In addition to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17021, clause 9.1.2, the audit plan shall identify any computer-assisted auditing techniques that will be utilized. 4.1.2.2 In addition to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17021, clause 9.1.3, when using CAAT, specific attention shall be given to the auditors’ ability to understand and utilize the information technologies employed by the client organization to manage its management system processes. 4.1.2.3 In addition to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17021, clause 9.1.4, if a certification body uses CAAT, it may be considered as partially contributing to the total on-site auditor time. If remote auditing activities represent more than 30% of the planned on-site auditor time, the certification body shall justify the audit plan and obtain specific approval from the accreditation body prior to its implementation. NOTES: 1) It is expected that this "specific approval" will initially be done on a case-by-case basis, but does not preclude a "blanket approval" from the accreditation body for the certification body to go over a 30% reduction once the certification body has demonstrated that its process is robust. 2) On-site auditor time refers to the on-site auditor time allocated for individual sites. Electronic audits of remote sites are considered to be remote audits, even if the electronic audit is physically carried out from another of the client organization’s premises. 4.1.2.4 In addition to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17021, clause 9.1.10, audit reports shall indicate the extent to which CAAT has been used in carrying out the audit, and how it

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 24 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    contributes to audit effectiveness and efficiency. 4.1.2.5 In addition to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17021, clause 9.2.2.1 (a) when the certification body is proposing to use CAAT for part of the audit, the application review shall include verification that the client organization has the necessary infrastructure to support this approach. 4.1.2.6 In addition to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17021, clause 9.3.2.2, regardless of the use of CAAT, the organization shall be physically visited at least annually. 4.1.2.7 In addition to the requirements in ISO/IEC 17021, clause 9.9.2, records shall indicate the extent to which CAAT has been used in carrying out the audit and certification.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 25 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Chapter 5. Duration of QMS and EMS Audits (IAF MD 5: 2013) This document is mandatory for the consistent application of Clause 9.1.4.1 of ISO/IEC 17021:2011 for audits of quality and environmental management systems and is based upon guidance previously provided in IAF GD2:2005 Annex 2 and GD6: 2006 Annex 1. All clauses of ISO/IEC 17021:2011 continue to apply and this document does not supersede any of the requirements in that standard. Although personnel numbers (permanent, temporary and part time) of the client are used as the starting point when considering the audit duration, this is not the sole consideration and account shall be taken of other factors affecting audit duration. 5.0 INTRODUCTION 5.0.1 This document provides mandatory provisions and guidance for CABs to develop their own documented procedures for determining the amount of time required for the auditing of clients of differing sizes and complexity over a broad spectrum of activities. It is intended that this will lead to consistency of audit duration between CABs, as well as between similar clients of the same CAB. 5.0.2 CABs shall identify the audit duration for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 initial audit, surveillance audits, and re-certification audits for each applicant and certified client. 5.0.3 This mandatory document does not stipulate minimum/maximum times but provides a framework that shall be utilized within a CAB’s documented procedures to determine appropriate audit duration, taking into account the specifics of the client to be audited. 5.0.4 For accreditation purposes, it should be noted that nonconformity with this document (and/or the included tables) in individual instances does not automatically lead to nonconformity against ISO/IEC 17021. However, this situation could be grounds for further investigation into the completeness of the audit. Special consideration should be given to investigating the grounds for deviation from this mandatory document. 5.0.5 If inconsistencies to this mandatory document are found on a more regular basis, this could form the basis for nonconformity against ISO/IEC 17021 on the grounds that the CAB cannot give a reasonable assurance that it gives its audit teams the time to perform a sufficiently complete audit as part of the certification process.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 26 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    5.1 DEFINITION 5.1.1 Audit Duration Audit duration for all types of audits is the effective time measured in auditor days required to carry out auditing activity. 5.1.2 Auditor Day The duration of an auditor day is normally 8 hours and may or may not include travel time or lunch depending upon local legislation. 5.1.3 Effective Number of Personnel The effective number of personnel consists of all full time personnel involved within the scope of certification including those working on each shift. Non-permanent (seasonal, temporary, sub-contractors and contracted personnel) and part time personnel who will be present at the time of the audit shall be included in this number. 5.1.4 Temporary Site A temporary site is one set up by an organization in order to perform specific work or a service for a finite period of time and which will not become a permanent site. (e.g. a construction site). 1.5 Complexity Category (EMS only) For environmental management systems, the provisions specified in this document are based on five primary complexity categories of the nature, number and gravity of the environmental aspects of an organization that fundamentally affect the auditor time. 5.2 APPLICATION 5.2.1 Audit Duration Audit duration for all types of audits includes on site time at a client's premises and time spent off-site carrying out planning, document review, interacting with client personnel and report writing. It is expected that the audit duration involved in these combined activities (irrespective of

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 27 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    whether the activities are undertaken off-site or on-site) should not typically reduce the total on-site audit duration to less than 80% of the time calculated following the methodology in Section 3. This applies to initial, surveillance and recertification audits. Where additional time is required for planning and/or report writing, this will not be justification for reducing on-site audit duration for any audit. 5.2.2 Auditor Day Tables QMS 1 and EMS 1 present audit durations calculated in auditor days on the basis of 8 hours per day. National adjustments on the number of days may be needed to comply with local legislation for travel, lunch breaks and working hours, to achieve the same total number of hours of auditing of Tables QMS 1 and EMS 1. The number of auditor days allocated shall not be reduced at the planning stages by programming longer hours per working day. 5.2.3 Effective Number of Personnel The effective number of personnel is used as a basis for the calculation of audit duration. Dependent upon the hours worked, part time personnel numbers may be reduced and converted to an equivalent number of full time personnel. Appropriate reduction should be made to the temporary unskilled personnel who may be employed in considerable numbers in some countries due to low level of technology and automation. Appropriate reduction of number of personnel also should be made where significant proportion of staff carry out a similar simple function for instance: transport, line work, assembly lines, etc. A CAB shall agree with the organization to be audited the timing of the audit which will best demonstrate the full scope of the client activities. Note: Timing of the audit to best demonstrate the full scope may include the need to audit outside normal working hours or suit the shift pattern employed. 5.3 METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING AUDIT DURATION 5.3.1 The methodology used as a basis for the calculation of audit duration of an initial audit (Stage 1 + Stage 2) involves the interpretation of tables and figures in Annex A and Annex B for QMS and EMS audits respectively. Annex A (QMS) is based solely upon the effective number of personnel (see Clause 5.2.3 for guidance on the calculation of the effective number of personnel) but does not provide minimum or maximum duration. In addition to effective number of personnel, Appendix B (EMS) is based also on the environmental complexity of the

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 28 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    organization and does not provide minimum or maximum duration. 5.3.2 Using a suitable multiplier, the same tables and figures may be used as the base for calculating audit duration for surveillance audits (Clause 5.5) and recertification audits (Clause 5.6). 5.3.3 The CAB shall have procedures that provide for the allocation of adequate time for auditing of relevant processes of the client. Experience has shown that apart from the number of personnel, the time required to carry out an effective audit depends upon other factors for both QMS and EMS. These factors are explored in more depth in Clause 5.8. 5.3.4 This mandatory document lists the provisions which should be considered when establishing the amount of time needed to perform an audit. These and other factors need to be examined during the CAB’s contract review process for their potential impact on the audit duration regardless of the type of audit. Therefore the relevant tables, figures and diagrams for both QMS and EMS which demonstrate the relationship between effective number of personnel and complexity, cannot be used in isolation. These tables and figures provide the framework for further audit planning and for making adjustments to audit duration for all types of audits. 5.3.5 For QMS audits, Figure QMS 1 provides a visual guide to making adjustments from the basic audit times and provides the framework for a process that should be used for audit planning by identifying a starting point based on the total effective number of personnel for all shifts. Where product or service realization processes operate on a shift basis, the extent of auditing of each shift by the CAB depends on the processes done on each shift, and the level of control of each shift that is demonstrated by the client. The justification for not auditing each shift shall be documented. 5.3.6 For an EMS audit it is appropriate to base audit duration on the effective number of personnel of the organization and the nature, number and gravity of the environmental aspects of the typical organization in that industry sector. The audit duration should then be adjusted based on any significant factors that uniquely apply to the organization to be audited. The CAB should exercise discretion to ensure that any variation in audit duration does not lead to a compromise on the effectiveness of audits. Where product or service realization processes operate on a shift basis, the extent of auditing of each shift by the CAB depends on the processes done on each shift, and the level of control of each shift that is demonstrated by the client. The justification for not auditing each shift shall be documented.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 29 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    5.3.7 The starting point for determining audit duration shall be identified based on the effective number of personnel, then adjusted for the significant factors applying to the client to be audited, and attributing to each factor an additive or subtractive weighting to modify the base figure. In every situation the basis for the establishment of audit duration including adjustments made shall be recorded. 5.3.8 Audit duration determinations using the tables or figures in Annexes A and B shall not include the time of “auditors-in-training” or the time of technical experts. 5.3.9 The reduction of audit duration shall not exceed 30% of the times established from Tables QMS 1 or EMS 1 5.4 INITIAL AUDIT DURATION (STAGE 1 PLUS STAGE 2) 5.4.1 Audit duration involved in combined offsite activities (Clause 5.2.1) should not reduce the total on-site audit duration to less than 80% of the time calculated following the methodology in Section 3. Where additional time is required for planning and/or report writing, this will not be justification for reducing on-site audit duration. 5.4.2 Table QMS 1 and Figure QMS 1 and Tables EMS 1 and EMS 2 provide a starting point for estimating the duration of an initial audit (Stage 1 + Stage 2) for QMS and EMS audits respectively. For each client, the CAB shall determine the time needed to plan and accomplish a complete and effective audit of the client’s management system. The audit time determined by the certification body and the justification for the determination shall be recorded. Where a CAB has applied a reduction or an increase to the times established in Tables QMS 1 or EMS 1, it shall make the justification available to their Accreditation Body for review during Accreditation Body assessments and on request from the Accreditation Body. 5.4.3 Certification audit duration may include remote auditing techniques such as interactive web-based collaboration; web meetings, teleconferences and/or electronic verification of the client’s processes (see IAF MD4). These activities shall be identified in the audit plan, and the time spent on these activities may be considered as contributing to the total “on-site audit duration”. If the CAB plans an audit for which the remote auditing activities represent more than 30% of the planned on-site audit duration, the CAB shall justify the audit plan and maintain the records of this justification which shall be available to an Accreditation Body for

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 30 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    review. It is unlikely that the remote auditing activities represent more than 50% of the total on-site auditor time. Notes: 1. On-site auditor time refers to the on-site auditor time allocated for individual sites. Electronic audits of remote sites are considered to be remote audits, even if the electronic audit is physically carried out on the organization’s premises. 2. Regardless of the remote auditing techniques used, the client organization shall be physically visited at least annually. 3. It is unlikely that the duration of a Stage 2 audit will be less than one (1) auditor/day. 5.5 SURVEILLANCE During the initial three year certification cycle, surveillance audit duration for a given organization should be proportional to the time spent on initial certification audit (Stage 1 + Stage 2), with the total amount of time spent annually on surveillance being about 1/3 of the time spent on the initial certification audit. An update of client data related to certification shall be available for the planning of each surveillance audit. The planned surveillance audit duration shall be reviewed from time-to-time, at least at every surveillance audit and always at the time of recertification, to take into account changes in the organization, system maturity, etc. The evidence of review including any adjustments to audit duration shall be recorded. 5.6 RECERTIFICATION The duration of the recertification audit should be calculated on the basis of the updated information of the client and is normally approximately 2/3 of the time that would be required for an initial certification audit (Stage 1 + Stage 2) of the organization if such an initial audit were to be carried out at the time of recertification (i.e. not 2/3 of the original initial certification audit duration). The audit duration shall take account of the outcome of the review of system performance (ISO/IEC 17021 cl. 9.4.1.2). The review of system performance does not itself form part of the audit duration for recertification audits. 5.7 INDIVIDUALIZED SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATION CYCLES For the second and subsequent certification cycles, the CAB may choose to design an individualized surveillance and recertification program (see IAF MD3 for Advanced

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 31 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Surveillance and Recertification Procedures – ASRP). If an ASRP approach is not chosen the audit duration should be calculated as indicated in Clauses 5.5 and 5.6. 5.8 FACTORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS OF AUDIT DURATION (QMS AND EMS) The additional factors that need to be considered include but are not limited to: Increase in audit duration:

    • Complicated logistics involving more than one building or location where work is carried out. e.g., a separate Design Centre must be audited; • Staff speaking in more than one language (requiring interpreter(s) or preventing individual auditors from working independently); • Very large site for the number of personnel (e.g., a forest); • High degree of regulation (e.g. food, drugs, aerospace, nuclear power, etc); • System covers highly complex processes or relatively high number of unique activities; • Activities that require visiting temporary sites to confirm the activities of the permanent site(s) whose management system is subject to certification.

    Increases in audit duration for EMS only:

    • Higher sensitivity of receiving environment compared to typical location for the industry sector; • Views of interested parties; • Indirect aspects necessitating increase in auditor time; • Additional or unusual environmental aspects or regulated conditions for the sector.

    Decrease in audit duration:

    • Client is not "design responsible" or other standard elements are not covered in the scope (QMS only); • Very small site for number of personnel (e.g. office complex only), • Maturity of management system; • Prior knowledge of the client management system (e.g., already certified to another standard by the same CAB); • Client preparedness for certification (e.g., already certified or recognized by another 3rd party scheme); • Low complexity activities, e.g. • Processes involve a single generic activity (e.g., Service only); • Identical activities performed on all shifts with appropriate evidence of equivalent

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 32 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    performance on all shifts based on prior audits (internal audits and CAB audits); • Where a significant proportion of staff carry out a similar simple function;

    Note: For EMS, low complexity processes are captured in Table EMS 1. • Where staff include a number of people who work “off location” e.g. salespersons, drivers, service personnel, etc. and it is possible to substantially audit compliance of their activities with the system through review of records. All attributes of the client’s system, processes, and products/services should be considered and a fair adjustment made for those factors that could justify more or less auditor time for an effective audit. Additive factors may be off-set by subtractive factors. Note: Additional factors to consider when calculating the duration of audits of integrated management systems are addressed in IAF MD 11. 5.9 TEMPORARY SITES 5.9.1 In situations where the certification applicant or certified client provides their product(s) or service(s) at temporary sites, such sites shall be incorporated into the audit programs. 5.9.2 Temporary sites could range from major project management sites to minor service/installation sites. The need to visit such sites and the extent of sampling should be based on an evaluation of the risks of the failure of the QMS to control product or service output or the EMS to control environmental aspects and impacts associated with the client's operations. The sample of sites selected should represent the range of the client’s competency needs and service variations having given consideration to sizes and types of activities, and the various stages of projects in progress and associated environmental aspects and impacts. 5.9.3 Typically on-site audits of temporary sites would be performed. However, the following methods could be considered as alternatives to replace some on-site audits: − interviews or progress meetings with the client and/or its customer in person or by teleconference; − document review of temporary site activities; − remote access to electronic site(s) that contains records or other information that is relevant to the assessment of the management system and the temporary site(s); − use of video and teleconference and other technology that enable effective auditing to be conducted remotely.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 33 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    5.9.4 In each case, the method of audit should be fully documented and justified in terms of its effectiveness. 5.10 MULTI-SITE AUDIT DURATION 5.10.1 In the case of multi-site audits, the starting point for calculating audit duration for each site shall be consistent with Table QMS 1, and Figure QMS 1 for quality management systems and Table EMS 1 for environmental management systems. However reductions can be made taking into account situations where certain management system processes are not relevant to the site and are the primary responsibility of the controlling site. 5.10.2 Requirements for multi-site audits are covered in more detail in IAF MD1 for certification of multiple sites based on sampling. In this case, MD1 shall be used to select sites to be sampled prior to applying MD5 to each selected site. 5.11 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

    Table QMS 1 – Quality Management Systems Relationship between Effective Number of Personnel

    Effective Number of Personnel

    Audit Duration Stage 1 + Stage 2

    (days)

    Effective Number of Personnel

    Audit Duration Stage 1 + Stage 2

    (days) 1-5 1.5 626-875 12

    6-10 2 876-1175 13 11-15 2.5 1176-1550 14 16-25 3 1551-2025 15 26-45 4 2026-2675 16 46-65 5 2676-3450 17 66-85 6 3451-4350 18

    86-125 7 4351-5450 19 126-175 8 5451-6800 20 176-275 9 6801-8500 21 276-425 10 8501-10700 22 426-625 11 >10700 Follow progression

    above Note 1: The numbers of employees in Table QMS 1 should be seen as a continuum rather than a stepped change.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 34 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Note 2: The CAB’s procedure may provide for audit duration for a number of employees exceeding 10700. Such audit duration should follow the progression in Table QMS 1 in a consistent fashion. Figure QMS 1 – Relationship between Complexity and Audit Duration

    ────▶

    O

    rgan

    izat

    ion

    Dis

    tribu

    tion

    ────▶

    Large Simple Multi-site Few processes Repetitive processes Small scope

    Large Complex Multi-site Many processes Large scope Unique processes Design responsible

    Starting point from Auditor Time Chart

    Few processes Small scope Repetitive processes Small Simple

    Many processes Design responsible Large scope Unique processes Small Complex

    ───────▶ Client System Complexity ───────▶

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 35 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    5.12 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Table EMS 1 – Relationship between Effective Number of Personnel,

    Complexity and Audit Duration (Initial Audit only)

    Effective Number of Personnel

    Audit Duration Stage 1 + Stage 2 (days)

    Effective Number of Personnel

    Audit Duration Stage 1 + Stage 2 (days)

    High Med Low Lim High Med Low Lim 1-5 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 626-875 17 13 10 6.5

    6-10 3.5 3 3 3 876-1175 19 15 11 7 11-15 4.5 3.5 3 3 1176-1550 20 16 12 7.5 16-25 5.5 4.5 3.5 3 1551-2025 21 17 12 8 26-45 7 5.5 4 3 2026-2675 23 18 13 8.5 46-65 8 6 4.5 3.5 2676-3450 25 19 14 9 66-85 9 7 5 3.5 3451-4350 27 20 15 10

    86-125 11 8 5.5 4 4351-5450 28 21 16 11 126-175 12 9 6 4.5 5451-6800 30 23 17 12 176-275 13 10 7 5 6801-8500 32 25 19 13 276-425 15 11 8 5.5 8501-10700 34 27 20 14 426-625 16 12 9 6 >10700 Follow progression above

    Note 1: Audit duration is shown for high, medium, low and limited complexity audits. Note 2: The numbers of personnel in Table EMS 1 should be seen as a continuum rather than a stepped change. Note 3: The CAB’s procedure may provide for audit duration for a number of personnel exceeding 10700. Such audit duration should follow the progression in Table EMS 1 in a consistent fashion.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 36 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Table EMS 2 – Examples of Linkage between Business Sectors and Complexity Categories of Environmental Aspects

    Complexity Category

    Business Sector

    High – mining and quarrying – oil and gas extraction – tanning of textiles and clothing – pulping part of paper manufacturing, including paper recycling processing – oil refining – chemicals and pharmaceuticals – primary productions – metals – non-metallics processing and products covering ceramics and cement – coal-based electricity generation – civil construction and demolition – hazardous and non-hazardous waste processing, e.g. incineration, etc. – effluent and sewerage processing

    Medium – fishing/farming/forestry – textiles and clothing except for tanning – manufacturing of boards, treatment/impregnation of wood and wooden products – paper production and printing, excluding pulping – non-metallics processing and products covering glass, clay, lime, etc. – surface and other chemically-based treatment for metal fabricated products, excluding primary production – surface and other chemically-based treatment for general mechanical engineering – production of bare printed circuit boards for electronics industry – manufacturing of transport equipment – road, rail, air, ships – non-coal-based electricity generation and distribution – gas production, storage and distribution (note: extraction is graded high) – water abstraction, purification and distribution, including river management (note: commercial effluent treatment is graded as high) – fossil fuel wholesale and retail – food and tobacco processing – transport and distribution by sea, air, land – commercial estate agency, estate management, industrial cleaning, hygiene cleaning, dry cleaning normally part of general business services

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 37 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    – recycling, composting, landfill (of non-hazardous waste) – technical testing and laboratories – healthcare/hospitals/veterinary – leisure services and personal services, excluding hotels/restaurants

    Low – hotels/restaurants – wood and wooden products, excluding manufacturing of boards, treatment and impregnation of wood – paper products, excluding printing, pulping, and paper making – rubber and plastic injection moulding, forming and assembly, excluding manufacturing of rubber and plastic raw materials that are part of chemicals – hot and cold forming and metal fabrication, excluding surface treatment and other chemical-based treatments and primary production – general mechanical engineering assembly, excluding surface treatment and other chemical-based treatments – wholesale and retail – electrical and electronic equipment assembly, excluding manufacturing of bare printed circuit boards

    Limited – corporate activities and management, HQ and management of holding companies – transport and distribution management services with no actual fleet to manage – telecommunications – general business services, except commercial estate agency, estate management, industrial cleaning, hygiene cleaning, dry cleaning – education services

    Special Cases

    – nuclear – nuclear electricity generation – storage of large quantities of hazardous material – public administration – local authorities – organizations with environmental sensitive products or services, financial institutions

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 38 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Complexity Categories of Environmental Aspects The provisions specified in this document are based on five primary complexity categories of the nature and gravity of the environmental aspects of an organization that fundamentally affect the auditor time. These are: High – environmental aspects with significant nature and gravity (typically manufacturing or processing type organizations with significant impacts in several of the environmental aspects); Medium – environmental aspects with medium nature and gravity (typically manufacturing organizations with significant impacts in some of the environmental aspects); Low – environmental aspects with low nature and gravity (typically organizations of an assembly type environment with few significant aspects); Limited – environmental aspects with limited nature and gravity (typically organizations of an office type environment); Special – these require additional and unique consideration at the audit planning stage.

    Table EMS 1 covers the above four top complexity categories: high, medium, low and limited. Table EMS 2 provides the link between the five complexity categories above and the industry sectors that would typically fall into that category. The CAB should recognise that not all organizations in a specific sector will always fall in the same complexity category. The CAB should allow flexibility in its contract review procedure to ensure that the specific activities of the organization are considered in determining the complexity category. For example, even though many businesses in the chemical sector should be classified as “high complexity”, an organization which would have only a mixing free from chemical reaction or emission and/or trading operation could be classified as “medium” or even “low complexity”. The CAB shall document all cases where they have lowered the complexity category for an organization in a specific sector. Table EMS 1 does not cover the “special complexity” category and the audit duration shall be developed and justified on an individual basis in these cases.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 39 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Chapter 6. IAF Mandatory Document for Harmonization of Sanctions to be applied to Conformity Assessment Bodies (MD 7:2010) This document is mandatory for the consistent application of Clause 7.13 of ISO/IEC17011:2004 under specific circumstances described in this document. This document does not supersede any of the requirements of that standard. 6.0 INTRODUCTION 6.0.1 Under ISO/IEC 17011, Accreditation Bodies (ABs) are required to have procedures for suspension, withdrawal or reduction of the accreditation scope (refer to ISO/IEC 17011 Clause 7.13.1). 6.0.2 The intention of this document is to clarify the situations where the sanctions shall be applied to applicant or accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) and the subsequent necessary communication which shall be taken by ABs. 6.0.3 The following are applicable not only to the scope of the IAF MLA but also to any other IAF accreditation activities, not just the management system certification. Other situations are at individual AB’s discretion. 6.0.4 Clause 6.2 states some situations that frequently lead to sanctions by an AB and Clause 3 describes sanctions that are normally applied progressively by an AB. 6.0.5 6.4 and 6.5 describe specific instances in which there shall be a harmonized approach by all ABs. 6.1 REFERENCES 1) ISO/IEC 17011 Conformity assessment – General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies. 2) IAF-ILAC JGA 2007 Sydney Resolution 7 (Refer to Annex A) 6.2 INITIATION OF SANCTIONS Situations that lead to sanctions being applied to applicant or accredited CABs include, but are

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 40 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    not limited to the following: ㆍFailure to resolve nonconformities in accordance with an AB’s procedures; ㆍNegative outcome of a complaint investigation; ㆍMisuse/misrepresentation of an accreditation symbol (see ISO/IEC 17011 clause 8.3.3 and NOTE); ㆍNon-payment of fees. 6.3 SANCTIONS AVAILABLE Sanctions available include, but are not limited to: ㆍIntensification of surveillance (office, witness or document review); ㆍReduction of accreditation scope (including geographical scope); ㆍSuspension; ㆍWithdrawal; ㆍPublic notice of scope reduction/suspension/withdrawal/misrepresentation of accreditation; ㆍLegal actions. NOTE 1: Application of sanctions outlined in this document does not preclude legal action by third parties, regulators, public authorities or any other interested parties. NOTE 2: Under ISO/IEC 17011 Clause. 8.1.1.(g), there is provision for an AB to refuse services if an AB perceives that any known violation of laws and regulations by the CAB would bring the AB into disrepute. 6.4. SPECIFIC HARMONIZED SANCTIONS The following are situations requiring specific sanctions by the AB: 6.4.1 Where there is proven evidence of fraudulent behavior, or the CAB intentionally provides false information, or the CAB deliberately violates accreditation rules, the AB shall initiate its process for withdrawal of accreditation. 6.4.2 Where a CAB is providing certification to any standard used as a basis for accrediting CABs (e.g. ISO/IEC 17025 or ISO 15189), the AB shall initiate its process for suspension of accreditation, as this behaviour of the CAB will put the AB, against its will, in the condition of providing the same service that a CAB performs, in violation of Clause 4.3.6 of ISO/IEC 17011. Further decisions shall be based on the actions taken by the CAB.

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 41 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    NOTE: The action detailed in this mandatory document does not override the CABs right to appeal against a decision as described in ISO/IEC 17011 Clause 7.10 IAF MD 7:2010 International Accreditation Forum, Inc. IAF Mandatory Document for Harmonization of Sanctions Page 7 of 9 Issue 1, Ver 2 to be applied to Conformity Assessment Bodies 6.5 COMMUNICATION In each of the situations mentioned in Clauses 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 that lead to suspension or withdrawal of accreditation and after any appeal decision in accordance with the AB’s appeals procedures, the AB shall notify the IAF Secretariat of this decision and the reasons. The IAF Secretary shall then communicate the decision and status to all IAF Member ABs in the following format: “[Name of AB] [state the action as ‘withdrew’ or ‘suspended’] accreditation of [Name of CB] on [date] for [state the proven offence]”. 6.6 Reference Annex A. IAF-ILAC JGA Sydney Resolution 7 – Certification to accreditation standards

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 42 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    Chapter 7. ASSESSMENT OF CERTIFICATION BODY MANAGEMENT OF COMPETENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISO/IEC17021:2011 (MD 10:2013) 7. 1 INTRODUCTION The aim of this document is to provide a harmonised approach to how Accreditation Bodies assess a Certification Body (CB)’s management of competence in accordance with ISO/IEC 17021:2011. 7. 2 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this document the following definitions shall apply: 7.2.1 Certification process the entirety of functions relating to certification from receipt of application to the granting and maintenance of certification 7.2.2 Certification function a stage of the certification process, for example, application review, audit, certification decision (ref; ISO/IEC 17021:2011 Annex A) 7.2.3 Intended results the outputs of a certification function that comply with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17021:2011 and the objectives of the CB’s certification process 7.3 GENERAL 7.3.1 The AB shall verify that the CB can demonstrate that all personnel involved in performing certification functions have the required competence. 7.3.2 The AB shall verify that the CB has defined its certification process and the intended results to be achieved for each certification function. The AB’s evaluation of the CB’s competence shall be based on: (a) the CB’s documented process for determining competence criteria; (b) the outcomes of the process for determining competence criteria; (c) the CB’s evaluations of its personnel; and

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 43 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    (d) taking account of the intended results of each certification function and whether, or not, these have been achieved. 7.3.3 The certification functions for which the AB shall verify that the CB has determined competence criteria, include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Application review (see example in 3.5 below); (b) Establishing the audit program; (c) Scheduling of audits; (d) Allocation of audit teams; (e) Auditing and reporting; (f) Report reviews and certification decisions; and (g) Maintenance of certification. Annex B of this document is informative and provides examples of intended results from the above certification functions. The CB may identify other intended results from these certification functions. 7.3.4 The AB shall verify that the CB has determined competence criteria for: (a) Management overseeing the certification process; (b) Members of its committee for safeguarding impartiality; (c) Personnel performing internal audits; and (d) Personnel responsible for evaluating and monitoring the competence and performance of personnel performing certification functions. 7.3.5 The AB shall regard objective evidence of the CB achieving the intended results for all certification functions (see Annex A of this document) as an indication of the effectiveness of its processes for determining and evaluating competence. The AB shall regard objective evidence of the CB failing to achieve intended results for any certification functions as an indication that the processes for determining and evaluating competence may be ineffective. Note: The failure of the CB to achieve the intended results for a particular certification function could also be an indication that the CB’s procedures for that function are ineffective or have not been implemented. For example, in the case of the application review, to determine that the CB has competent audit team members, it can allocate and to determine the audit time, the AB shall verify that

  • ISSUE No.2 April 15, 2015 44 / 64

    KAB Accreditation Advisory (2) : IAF Criteria KAB-A-02

    the CB: a) has defined the intended results (see (d) below) for this function of the certification process; b) has defined effective competence criteria for the personnel performing this function; c) can provide objective evidence that the staff performing this function have demonstrated that they meet the competence criteria; and d) that the output from this function of the certification process has achieved the intended results, by:

    i) providing evidence that the technical area(s) of the organisation to be audited has/have been correctly allocated; ii) providing evidence that the assigned auditors have the required competence for the appropriate technical area(s); and iii) providing evidence that adequate time has been allocated for the audit, based on the review of information provided by the applicant/certified client and from previous audits.

    7.3.6 The AB shall assess the process and procedures established by the CB to determine competence criteria and to evaluate competence to verify that personnel evaluated as competent consistently achieve the intended results for all certification functions. 7.3.7 The AB shall verify that the CB has appropriate records of the implementation of its processes for determining and evaluating competence and that the CB can demonstrate its