Closing an ISO/IEC 17025 assessment
This domain tests closing an assessment: consolidating findings, the closing meeting, the report, corrective action review, follow-up verification and the accreditation decision.
Closing sequence
- Consolidate and grade findings as major or minor against the accreditation body’s criteria; ensure each finding has a requirement and evidence.
- Closing meeting: present findings, agree factual accuracy (not necessarily agreement with the finding), explain correction versus corrective action, state timelines and explain the appeals process.
- Report: scope, criteria, team, dates, sites, findings, conclusions and any areas not assessed.
- Corrective action: the laboratory investigates root cause, plans action, implements it and checks effectiveness; the assessor verifies evidence.
- Follow-up may be desktop or on-site; major nonconformities usually require on-site verification before accreditation or extension.
- Decision: an independent accreditation decision-maker decides on accreditation, suspension, withdrawal or reduction.
Worked example
A laboratory has a nonconformity for using an out-of-calibration balance. It proposes to recalibrate the balance and send the certificate. The assessor asks for root cause: why did the equipment management process not flag the due date? The laboratory finds that the calibration list is maintained manually and no one owns it. Its corrective action is to move to an automated reminder with an assigned owner, check other equipment for the same failure and review results issued since the due date. The assessor verifies the new list, the assignment and the retrospective review. Recalibration alone is a correction, not a corrective action; closing the nonconformity on the certificate alone would be insufficient.
Traps
- Accepting correction as corrective action.
- Closing without objective evidence of implementation and effectiveness.
- Reports that are late or lack traceability to evidence.
- Reopening scope at the closing meeting without process.
- Confusing the assessor’s recommendation with the accreditation decision.
- Ignoring appeals and complaints routes.