Process

A prospective body describes the activities it may later ask to have considered.

An initial enquiry is a request for information. The body identifies itself and describes, in general terms, the conformity assessment activities, locations and standards it has in mind.

The enquiry is used to see whether the request can be understood, which standard would ordinarily frame it, and whether it falls within a field AKZERT is prepared to discuss. It is not an application, and it creates no expectation of assessment or of a decision.

Any period for a reply, and any information AKZERT asks for at this stage, will be stated in a published procedure. No such period is set out here.

A named legal entity makes a formal request for a defined scope.

An application is a formal request by an identified legal entity. It describes the activities, sites and standards concerned, and the scope for which accreditation is sought.

The application ordinarily includes enough information to understand the body’s structure, its impartiality arrangements and the way the scope has been defined. Supporting documents are those needed to make the request intelligible. An application form will be placed in the document centre only after it has been approved.

Submission of an application is not a decision to assess, and it is not a decision to accredit.

The request is examined for completeness and for a scope that can be understood.

Application review examines whether the request is complete and whether the scope is described clearly enough to be assessed. Missing information is identified and requested. A scope that cannot be understood as written is returned for clarification.

The review also considers, in principle, the competence and capacity required for a later assessment. It does not itself establish technical competence, and it does not replace document review or assessment.

Resource planning at this stage is an internal matter. It is not published here as a timetable.

Policies, procedures and records are read against the applicable requirements.

Document review reads the body’s policies, procedures and selected records against the requirements of the applicable standard and any scheme rules that genuinely apply to the requested scope.

The review looks for a management system capable of consistent operation, for procedures that describe the work as it is intended to be done, and for arrangements that address impartiality, competence and the control of records.

Findings are recorded so that they can be resolved before assessment or examined during it, according to their nature. Document review is evidence for the assessment. It is not the decision.

Competence is examined where the work is performed, including witnessed activity where relevant.

Assessment examines whether the body is competent to perform the activities in the requested scope, and whether it operates consistently with its own procedures and the applicable requirements.

It ordinarily includes the body itself and, where the scope depends on work carried out away from the body’s premises, witnessed performance of that work. Sampling is planned so that the evidence can support a conclusion about the defined scope. The plan is a matter for the assessment, not a published quota.

People assigned to an assessment are selected for relevant knowledge and for freedom from conflicts that would compromise the work. The output of assessment is a report of findings. The report recommends nothing that binds the decision, and the assessment team does not decide.

The body describes how each finding has been corrected and how recurrence is to be prevented.

Where assessment identifies a nonconformity, the body describes the extent of the finding, the correction of its effects, and the corrective action taken to remove the cause.

The response is reviewed for whether it addresses the finding that was raised. A response that does not address the finding remains open. An open nonconformity is information for the decision.

The time allowed for a response belongs in a published procedure. No number of days is stated on this website, because no such procedure has been approved for publication.

A decision on the defined scope is taken separately from the assessment.

The decision considers the application, the assessment report, the response to findings and the scope as defined. It may grant, refuse, maintain, extend, reduce, suspend or withdraw accreditation for that scope.

The decision is taken separately from the assessment. People who assessed the body do not take the decision on their own assessment. The separation is a condition of an impartial conclusion.

A decision to grant describes the scope with enough precision that a reader of the public directory can see what has been attested. A decision to refuse or withdraw states the outcome. Reasons are given to the body through the process that will be published with the complaints and appeals procedure. No decision is implied by the existence of this explanation.

After a grant, selected activities are reviewed during the cycle, and the scope is considered again at reassessment.

Where an accreditation has been granted, confidence in it depends on activity after the decision. Surveillance reviews selected parts of the system, the competence arrangements and the scope during the cycle. The selection is planned. It is not a repetition of every element on every visit.

Reassessment considers the scope again before a cycle ends. It asks whether the body remains competent for the activities described, and whether the scope should be maintained, reduced or otherwise changed.

The length of a cycle, the frequency of surveillance and the consequences of a missed activity will be stated only in a verified procedure. They are not stated here.