Question 27.1 Type A Independence: IB applying fines

According to National law, the inspection body is empowered to apply administrative and financial fines.
Does this company meet the requirements for Type A inspection body?

March 2014

The requirements of Annex A, A.1 (Type A) to independence are valid for governmental inspection bodies, too. If this governmental organisation or its personnel are not engaged in the design, manufacture, supply, installation, purchase, ownership, use or maintenance of the items / services it inspects then it is type A body.

In the context of this question there is no impediment to the inspection body being Type A:

There isn´t any clause in the ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard that forbids Type A inspection bodies to apply fines.

The problem of applying administrative and financial fines is linked to its impartiality (in reference of chapter 4.1.2 and 4.1.3). This state enterprise has to identify risks to its impartiality. The fact that it can apply financial fines after making inspection is a factor that has to be considered.

Question 27.2 Type A independence: IB filling and supplying gas cylinders

If an organization is filling gas cylinders and keeping gas cylinders in stock, as an exchange system, can it be a type A inspection body for periodic inspection of gas cylinders?

The filling is done after the inspection is completed, the inspection report is issued, and inspection label has been attached to the cylinder.

Relevant requirement of ISO/IEC 17020:2012:

Annex A, A.1 b) The inspection body and its personnel shall not engage in any activities that may conflict with their independence of judgment and integrity in relation to their inspection activities. In particular, they shall not be engaged in the design, manufacture, supply, installation, purchase, ownership, use or maintenance of the items inspected.

NOTE 1 This does not preclude exchanging technical information between the client and the inspection body (e.g. explanation of findings or clarifying requirements or training).

NOTE 2 This does not preclude the purchase, ownership or use of inspected items that are necessary for the operations of the inspection body, or the purchase, ownership or use of the items for personal purposes by the personnel.

March 2014

The inspection body is part of an organization that is a supplier of gas cylinders. This means that the inspection body inspects the same items that the organization later supply.

Even if the inspection is carried out after the filling of the gas cylinders, there is an interest of the inspection body for the inspection to be positive as the organization to which it belongs is providing cylinders.

This inspection body could be accredited as type B or C not as type A.

Question 28.2 Type A independence: IB filling and supplying gas cylinders

ISO/IEC 17020:2012, 4.1.3 The inspection body shall identify risks to its impartiality on an ongoing basis. This shall include those risks that arise from its activities, or from its relationships, or from the relationships of its personnel. However, such relationships do not necessarily present an inspection body with a risk to impartiality.

NOTE A relationship that threatens the impartiality of the inspection body can be based on ownership, governance, management, personnel, shared resources, finances, contracts, marketing (including branding), and payment of a sales commission or other inducement for the referral of new clients, etc.

According to ILAC P15:05/2020: “4.1.3 n1 “on an ongoing basis” means that the inspection body identifies a risk whenever events occur which might have a bearing on the impartiality of the inspection body”.

What is the real meaning of this clarification? How do you interpret the term “whenever events occur…”?

September 2014

It is not automatically sufficient if risks are analyzed once a year during management review. Events should be defined in the risk analysis (e.g. change of personnel or owner, merging/take-over of companies etc). Control measures against these risks shall be carried out regularly (when necessary).

Threads to impartiality can be divided into two groups: those that can be eliminated and those that need to be managed.

Only threads that need to be managed can be addressed by the ongoing analysis. Non repairable will lead to NCs with need to changes.

There should still be regular reviews of the risks that are deemed to be eliminated but those that need to be managed would require more frequent reviews and timescales for these would be commensurate with the level of risk.

Proactive analysis – before the event occurs – is recommended.

Question 29.1 Independence: A1.c items inspected, installation and its components

An inspection body provides inspection of electrical installations (items inspected). In general, the inspection item (electrical installation) consists of various electrical equipment (for example switchboards). This means that the inspection body also inspects switchboards and its documentation as a part of installation.

ILAC P15:05/2020 3.1n1 The term “installation” may be defined as “a collection of components assembled to jointly achieve a purpose not achievable by the components separately”.

The accredited inspection body forms a part of bigger legal entity. The other part of the same legal entity is engaged in the manufacturing of electrical equipment (e.g switchboard) to be included to electrical installations. Electrical installations have been built by another legal entity, which is not related to the inspection body. However electrical equipment included to the installations can be produced by the legal entity that is an accredited inspection body.

Can such accredited inspection body be Type A?

March 2015

Referring to Annex A, A.1 c) of the ISO 17020:2012: “An inspection body shall not be a part of a legal entity that is engaged in design, manufacture, supply, installation, purchase, ownership, use or maintenance of the items inspected”

Items inspected are the installation and its components. If an IB is a part of a legal entity engaged in the manufacture of the items inspected, it cannot be a Type A inspection body.

Question 27.3 Contract of inspectors through employing company

6.1.2 The inspection body shall employ, or have contracts with, a sufficient number of persons with the required competencies, including, where needed, the ability to make professional judgements, to perform the type, range and volume of its inspection activities.

 Current ILAC P-15:2020 requires:

 5.2.5 n1 In order to be considered as “available”, the person shall be either employed or otherwise contracted.

 6.1.2 n1 All requirements of ISO/IEC 17020 apply equally for both employed and contracted persons.

 The question is: is it possible to contract inspectors through an employing company?

March 2014

Employing personnel shall be related to particular personnel. Mixing up with subcontracting shall be avoided.

ISO/IEC 17020:2012, Clause 6.3.1, NOTE 3 Where the inspection body engages individuals or employees of other organizations to provide additional resources or expertise, these individuals are not considered to be subcontractors provided they are formally contracted to operate under the inspection body’s management system (see 6.1.2).

The requirement of the standard (“The inspection body shall employ, or have contracts with, a sufficient number of persons”.) can be achieved by a contract via an employing company, if the contract ensures at least:

• the access to a particular inspector and his sufficient availability
• that the contract ensures clearly that the inspector will work under the inspection body management system.
• the control (education, training, monitoring – the “competence management”) is by the contracting inspection body.
• confidentiality and obligation to announce conflicts of interest to the inspection body.

Question 24.3 Definition of appeal – who can submit an appeal?

For the purpose of the application of the definition of “appeal”:
ISO/IEC 17020:2012, clause 3.9 appeal: request by the provider of the item of inspection to the inspection body for reconsideration by that body of a decision it has made relating to that item.

It seems that only the provider of the item to be inspected can submit an appeal or request the inspection body to reconsider the decision it has taken relating to that item.

It must be considered that in some cases the provider of the item to be inspected is different to the client of the inspection body (or persons seeking the inspection body’s services) and the results of the inspection are not necessarily given to the provider of the item to be inspected.

In this last case, who can submit an appeal to the inspection body? How can the definition of appeal in the ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard (3.9) be interpreted?

September 2012

The EA IC concluded that it is the “party directly affected by the decision” or the “party who contracted the inspection” that will be involved.

In the current ISO/IEC 17000:2000, the definition of appeal is in the clause 8.6 appeal: request by the person or organization that provides, or that is, the object of conformity assessment […]

Question 27.6 Procedures vs Documented procedures

ISO/IEC 17020:2012 Clauses:

 6.1.5  The inspection body shall have documented procedures for selecting, training, formally authorizing, and monitoring inspectors and other personnel involved in inspection activities.

 6.2.11 Where relevant for the outcome of inspection activities, the inspection body shall have procedures for the following:

• a) selection and approval of suppliers.
• b) verification of incoming goods and services.
• c) ensuring appropriate storage facilities.

What is the difference between documented procedures and procedures?

March 2014

In 17000:2020 standard (Conformity assessment — Vocabulary and general principles) procedure is defined as:

3.2. procedure: Specified way to carry out an activity or a process.

 Note 1 to entry:17000 in this context, a process is defined as a set of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result.

[SOURCE: ISO 9000:2015, 3.4.5 modified – the original Note to entry has been replaced with a new Note to entry]

And in 9000:2015 standard (Quality management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary), clause 3.4.5, which has the same definition, there is the note:

Note 1. Procedures can be documented or not.

Then it can be understood that where ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard asks for “documented procedures” then the procedures have to be documented.

And where the standard asks for “procedures” there might not be a documented procedure. In this case the inspection body should have evidence to demonstrate that the procedure is known within the inspection body and that the implementation of the procedure fulfills the ISO/IEC 17020:2012 standard.

Question 48.4 EN ISO/IEC 17020 p.7.6 Complainant considered as anonymous by IB

A complaint has been submitted to an inspection body (IB) by a third party (no client, no installation owner) regarding the results of conformity assessment activities. The IB has specified the complainant as anonymous (only name and gmail address was provided), because the complainant made the same complaint under different names and CAB identified that no people with these names exist. The IB complaints procedure states, that anonymous complaints will not be responded to. CAB did not respond to the complainant.

The IB acted in accordance with its complaints procedure and decided that clause 7.6.3 of the standard ISO/IEC 17020:2012 “Whenever possible, the inspection body shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint or appeal and shall provide the complainant or appellant with progress reports and the outcome” doesn’t apply for the anonymous complainant.

What is the criteria for handling such kind of requests?

September 2024

The standard ISO/IEC 17020:2012 mentions that:

7.5.3 Upon receipt of a complaint, the inspection body shall confirm whether the complaint relates to inspection activities for which it is responsible and, if so, shall deal with it.

7.6.3 Whenever possible, the inspection body shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint or appeal, and shall provide the complainant or appellant with progress reports and the outcome.

7.6.5 Whenever possible, the inspection body shall give formal notice of the end of the complaint and appeals handling process to the complainant or appellant

Then the IB must deal with all the complaints anonymous or not (7.5.3) because this clause doesn’t include “whenever possible”. But if the claimer is anonymous, then it can be considered that it is not possible to “acknowledge receipt and provide with progress reports” (7.6.3) nor “give formal notice of the end of the complaint” (7.6.5).

The Inspection body should consider the risks of anonymous complaints, e.g. may be malicious.