IJCA - Volume 2 - Flipbook - Page 18
18
The International Journal of Conformity Assessment
ABs are required to have clear policies and
procedures for planning and conducting
assessments of a conformity assessment body
operating within the main location and multisites.
This basically consists of a range of aspects to be
considered in order to minimize risk, for example,
the selection of sites, selection of assessment
techniques, the coverage of scope and personnel,
and indication of all these points in the assessment
program.
Application of Mandatory Requirements of
International Accreditation Forum (IAF) for
Witnessing to Manage Accreditation of Certification
Bodies at Minimum Risk
The IAF MD16:2015 (Application of ISO/IEC 17011
for the Accreditation of Food Safety Management
Systems (FSMS) Certification) has requirements for
witnessing of FSMS certification bodies. Particularly,
IAF MD16 allows the AB to consider other food
safety-related management systems in relation to
a specific food chain category for witnessing and
office assessments as well as the decision-making
process.
An AB has the choice to consider a particular food
chain cluster, which includes one or more food
chain categories, and grant accreditation after a one
witnessing in the particular cluster. Even though
this approach is allowed by the IAF MD16, ABs
are required to consider the possible risks if the
certification body does not have auditors, internal
staff, and clients in relation to a specific food chain
category. Because it is a risk for an AB to grant
accreditation without witnessing for the cluster.
So, Accreditation Bodies should at least conduct
a file review of clients, auditors, and internal staff,
and then decide whether the CB has the required
competency to carry out certification activities.
The same approach should be applied when an
accredited CB is requesting scope extension
within a cluster already accredited. Of course, for
a scope extension for a new cluster, IAF MD16
does not allow for granting accreditation without
witnessing. In addition, when the accreditation body
develops an assessment program, it is required
to consider witnessing of cluster 2 every year
and at least one witness within five years in other
clusters. At minimum, witnessing should cover
initial certification during the period. Due attention
on requirements for witnessing given in IAF MD16
and consideration of potential risks for granting
accreditation without witnessing is required for
accreditation bodies operating an accreditation
scheme for FSMS certification.
IAF MD17:2019 (Witnessing Activities for the
Accreditation of Management Systems Certification
Bodies), section 0.1 stated that “According to
ISO/IEC 17011:2017 clause 7.4.4 and clause 7.4.5,
Accreditation Bodies (ABs) are also required to
establish documented procedures to assess the
competence of conformity assessment body to
perform all activities in its scope of accreditation
irrespective of where these activities are performed,
through the use of a combination of onsite
assessments and other assessment techniques
sufficient to provide confidence in the conformity
with the relevant accreditation criteria. The
assessment shall cover a sample of locations
and personnel to determine the competence of
the conformity assessment body to perform the
activities covered by its scope of accreditation.”
Under the management system certification, there
are different certification schemes, such as QMS
(Quality Management Systems), EMS (Environmental
Management Systems), and OH & SMS (Occupational
Health and Safety Management Systems) and many
scope sectors, which come under different economic
sectors/activities. These schemes support the
competence of certification bodies to conduct audits
under different technical scopes to be assessed by
the accreditation body prior to grant accreditation.
If the AB is not able to assess the competence of
the certification body to carry out certification under
all economic activities as per IAF ID1:2020 (IAF
Informative Document for QMS and EMS Scopes
of Accreditation), it will be a higher risk for the
accreditation body.
However, it is not possible for an AB to conduct
witness of all scope sectors. Therefore, the AB
can get the advantage of technical clustering and
identification of critical sectors as highlighted in
IAF MD17 and use other assessment techniques
as far as possible and practicable to assess the
competence of certifications bodies rather than
depending only on the witnessing. If an AB totally
depends on the provisions of IAF MD17 and complies
with it, the AB still has risk as there are some scope
sectors within the clusters that have not been
assessed properly. How can the AB avoid this risk? It
is required to use other assessment techniques such
as document review, interview, file review, remote
assessments, etc. to determine the competence.
