Summary Procedure for Inspection Body Accreditation

1) Investigation bodies will make a conventional application for certification on structure along with the right application charge.

2) The candidate assessment body is expected to conform to the necessities of ISO 17020 what’s more, to keep a Quality Administration Framework as per the necessities of ISO 9001 (most recent rendition) or their own framework that at any rate accomplishes the necessities of ISO 17020.

3) The candidate ships off SDAB the manuals and techniques for the activity of an assessment body. These should include:

a. Its status with respect to Type A, B or C and game plans for unprejudiced nature and secrecy in view of the examination body type.

b. The sort of investigation, e.g., plan assessment, demonstrating, assessment or physical test, along with going with techniques and guidelines

c. Contract agreements for examination body clients and commonplace provisos

4) SDAB will lead a report evaluation. If important, SDAB will require the candidate to correct and answer before the subsequent stage.

5) SDAB will, when is helpful, lead a site observer of the candidate’s investigation.

6) Subject to a fruitful site observer and conclusion of any material remedial activity, the candidate’s license is affirmed. The review body is recorded on the SDAB site
for the most part without admonition.

1. Introduction

Accreditation serves as a formal, third-party recognition that an inspection body is competent to carry out specific inspection tasks. It provides assurance to regulators, industry, and the wider public that the inspections performed are reliable, impartial, and meet internationally recognized standards. This summary procedure outlines the key stages an inspection body must undergo to achieve accreditation from the SDAB (Standards and Development Accreditation Board, used as an example body). The process is designed to be rigorous and thorough, ensuring the integrity of the accreditation outcome.

2. Initial Application and Commitment

2.1 Formal Application: The prospective inspection body submits a formal application for accreditation to SDAB. This application must be made on the prescribed form and accompanied by the applicable, non-refundable application fee. The application typically requests fundamental details about the organization, its legal status, ownership structure, scope of inspection activities sought, and locations of operation.

2.2 Declaration of Conformity: From the outset, the applicant must declare its commitment to conform to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17020:2012 (Conformity assessment — Requirements for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection). This is the core standard for inspection body accreditation globally.

2.3 Quality Management System (QMS) Requirement: The applicant must establish and maintain a documented Quality Management System. While this system can be based on the principles of ISO 9001 (latest version), it must, at a minimum, fully address all the management system requirements specified in ISO/IEC 17020. Many bodies find it efficient to integrate ISO 9001 with the additional, more technically focused demands of ISO/IEC 17020.

3. Documentation Submission and Preliminary Evaluation

3.1 Submission of Key Documents: The applicant must submit its core management and technical documentation to SDAB for review. This package is critical as it forms the basis for the subsequent assessment. It must include:

3.1.1 Quality Manual and Management Procedures: This document outlines the inspection body’s QMS, describing its structure, policies, and management procedures for meeting the standards’ requirements.

3.1.2 Statement on Impartiality and Confidentiality: A crucial declaration identifying the inspection body’s type:

Type A: An inspection body independent from the parties involved and from any commercial, financial, or other pressures that might influence its judgement.
Type B: An inspection body that forms a distinct, identifiable part of a larger organization involved in the design, manufacture, supply, installation, use, or maintenance of the items it inspects, and which supplies inspection services to its parent organization or external parties.
Type C: An inspection body that is part of a larger organization involved in the design, manufacture, supply, installation, use, or maintenance of the items it inspects, and supplies inspection services exclusively to its parent organization.
The documentation must detail the practical arrangements (organizational separation, management commitment, confidentiality agreements, etc.) that safeguard impartiality and ensure the confidentiality of client information.

3.1.3 Scope of Accreditation and Technical Procedures: A clear description of the specific inspection activities (e.g., design review, product verification, in-service inspection, non-destructive testing, dimensional inspection) for which accreditation is sought. For each activity, the body must submit detailed technical procedures, work instructions, and the standards/ specifications against which inspections are performed.

3.1.4 Contractual Agreements: Model contracts or standard terms and conditions used with clients, ensuring they align with the requirements for impartiality, confidentiality, and the clear definition of the inspection service to be provided.

4. Document Review Stage

4.1 Conduct of Review: SDAB assigns a lead assessor and a technical expert (if needed) to perform a comprehensive desk assessment of the submitted documentation. This review evaluates whether the documented system theoretically meets all the requirements of ISO/IEC 17020 and relevant technical standards.

4.2 Feedback and Correction: If the documentation is found incomplete or non-conformant, SDAB issues a formal report outlining the identified gaps or deficiencies (Document Review Findings). The applicant is required to take corrective action, amend its documentation, and provide a written response and evidence of correction. Progression to the next stage is conditional upon the satisfactory resolution of all major document review findings.

5. On-Site Assessment

5.1 Planning and Execution: Once the documentation is deemed adequate, SDAB schedules an on-site assessment at the applicant’s premises. This assessment verifies that the documented system is fully understood, implemented, and maintained in practice. The assessment team, led by the lead assessor, uses methods such as:

Interviews with management and staff.
Witnessing of live inspections or simulations.
Review of records (calibration certificates, training files, inspection reports, internal audit reports, management review minutes).
Examination of equipment and facilities.
Evaluation of technical competence and the application of procedures.

5.2 Assessment Findings: Classification, Impact, and Management

The on-site assessment is a critical, evidence-gathering exercise where the theoretical system described in the applicant’s documentation is rigorously tested against the reality of its daily operations. The formal output of this stage is a set of documented Assessment Findings. These findings are not merely a list of errors but a calibrated evaluation of the inspection body’s state of compliance. They are systematically classified into three distinct categories: Conformities, Minor Non-conformities, and Major Non-conformities. This classification is fundamental to the accreditation decision-making process and guides the subsequent corrective action requirements.

1. Conformities

A conformity is a positive finding that confirms a specific requirement of ISO/IEC 17020 (or other applicable criteria) is being met effectively. Assessors record conformities to demonstrate areas of strength and good practice. While they do not necessitate corrective action, they form part of the complete assessment record, providing a balanced view of the organization’s performance. Documenting conformities is essential, as it:

Validates the implementation of the management system.
Provides positive feedback to the inspection body’s staff and management.
Creates a benchmark for consistent good practice within the organization.

2. Minor Non-conformity

A Minor Non-conformity is identified when there is a lapse in the fulfillment of a requirement, but the lapse is isolated, unlikely to recur systematically, and does not cast doubt on the technical competence of the inspection body or the validity of its past inspection results. It represents a failure in a specific instance that has not yet led to a systemic breakdown.

Key characteristics of a Minor Non-conformity include:

Isolated Incident: The issue is a one-off occurrence, such as a single unchecked box on a form, a calibration certificate missing from one file, or a temporary lapse in environmental monitoring for a non-critical parameter.
Limited Systemic Impact: The finding does not indicate a failure of the underlying procedure or process. The procedure itself is sound and generally followed; the issue was an oversight in its application on one occasion.
No Direct Threat to Result Validity: The assessor can reasonably conclude that this specific lapse did not, and would not, compromise the reliability, accuracy, or integrity of an inspection finding or report.

Examples:

An inspector’s training record is missing a signature from the competency assessor, though the training itself is verified.
A reference standard was used within its calibration validity period, but the sticker indicating its status was inadvertently removed.
A non-critical piece of equipment is listed in the inventory but was missed during the last internal audit schedule.

3. Major Non-conformity

A Major Non-conformity is a serious finding. It signifies a systemic or critical failure that directly calls into question the inspection body’s ability to consistently produce reliable and impartial inspection data, or its fundamental compliance with the accreditation standard. The presence of a major non-conformity typically halts the progression towards accreditation until it is fully resolved and verified.

A Major Non-conformity arises in two primary scenarios, as defined in the standard:

a) A failure to meet a key requirement of the standard.
This is a breach of a fundamental clause of ISO/IEC 17020 that underpins the credibility of the inspection body. Such failures strike at the heart of the accreditation principles.

Examples include:

Impartiality & Independence: Evidence of commercial, financial, or hierarchical pressure influencing an inspection result; lack of effective arrangements to ensure the impartiality of Type B or C inspection bodies; conflicts of interest that are not managed.
Competence: An inspector performing a complex NDT (Non-Destructive Testing) inspection without demonstrated competence or valid certification as required by the procedure.
Methodology: Routinely performing inspections using a method that deviates from the specified standard without a validated justification and without informing the client.
Equipment: Using a critical measuring instrument that is out of calibration, thereby invalidating all measurements taken with it since its last valid calibration.
Management System Failure: Complete absence of a required process, such as no internal audit program, no management review, or no process for handling customer complaints.

b) A breakdown in the effectiveness of the Quality Management System (QMS).
This occurs when the system designed to prevent errors has itself failed. A series of related minor non-conformities in the same area can escalate to a major non-conformity, as it reveals a pattern of failure that the QMS did not detect or correct.

Examples include:

Ineffective Corrective Action: The same or similar minor non-conformity (e.g., recurring document control errors) reappears across multiple assessments or internal audits, demonstrating that the root cause was not identified or addressed.
Systemic Ignorance of Procedure: Multiple personnel in a department are found to be unaware of or not following a critical documented procedure, indicating a failure in training, communication, or supervision.
Failure of Internal Controls: The internal audit process is found to be superficial, not covering key technical areas, or failing to identify obvious non-conformities that the external assessor readily found.

Management and Implications of Findings

The classification drives the next steps:

For Minor Non-conformities: The inspection body must investigate the cause, take corrective action to fix the specific instance and prevent recurrence, and submit evidence of this action to SDAB for review and closure. Accreditation may proceed pending satisfactory evidence.
For Major Non-conformities: The process cannot advance. The inspection body must conduct a rigorous root cause analysis (using tools like 5 Whys or Fishbone diagrams), implement widespread corrective and preventive actions, and provide robust evidence. SDAB will almost certainly require a follow-up on-site visit to verify the effectiveness of the actions before granting accreditation. The discovery of a major non-conformity during surveillance can lead to suspension or withdrawal of accreditation if not addressed promptly and effectively.

In summary, the precise classification of assessment findings is a professional judgement based on evidence, risk, and the standard’s requirements. It is the mechanism that ensures the accreditation process maintains its rigor, providing confidence to all stakeholders that an accredited inspection body has not only a functioning system but one that is robust, self-correcting, and fundamentally reliable.

6. Corrective Actions and Decision

6.1 Addressing Non-Conformities: The applicant receives a detailed assessment report and must submit a plan for corrective action to address any non-conformities raised, within a stipulated timeframe. The plan must include root cause analysis and evidence of implementation.

6.2 Verification and Closure: SDAB reviews the submitted corrective actions. For minor issues, review of documented evidence may suffice. For major non-conformities, a follow-up visit or a remote verification may be required to confirm effective resolution.

7. Accreditation Grant and Surveillance

7.1 Grant of Accreditation: Subject to a successful on-site assessment and the satisfactory closure of all identified non-conformities, SDAB’s accreditation committee makes the final decision to grant accreditation. The accredited inspection body is issued a certificate of accreditation detailing its approved scope.

7.2 Listing: The Public Register as a Tool for Transparency and Trust

The publication of an inspection body’s accreditation details on the SDAB’s public register is the final, public-facing step in the accreditation process and a cornerstone of the system’s value. This listing transforms a private achievement into a public guarantee, serving multiple critical functions for the marketplace, regulators, and the inspection body itself.

Content and Purpose of the Listing
The listing is not merely an announcement; it is a structured data set. It typically includes:

The accredited body’s legal name and primary contact details.
The unique accreditation certificate number and its validity dates.
The precise, officially approved “Scope of Accreditation.” This is the most vital component, as it details the specific inspection activities, product categories, standards used, and locations (if applicable) for which competence has been verified. This prevents scope creep and ensures users know exactly what services are covered.
The standard against which the body is accredited (e.g., ISO/IEC 17020:2012).

This publicly accessible register acts as:

A Verification Tool for Clients: Prospective clients can independently verify the accreditation status and specific capabilities of an inspection body before contracting its services, ensuring their chosen provider is objectively assessed.
A Regulatory Reference: Government agencies and specifiers can mandate or prefer the use of SDAB-accredited bodies, relying on the register to check compliance efficiently.
A Market Differentiator: For the inspection body, the listing is a powerful credential that enhances its reputation, facilitates entry into new markets (especially where accreditation is a contractual prerequisite), and distinguishes it from non-accredited competitors.

“Updated Without Prior Warning”: A Principle of Integrity
The policy of updating the register without prior warning to the accredited body is a deliberate and essential safeguard for the integrity of the entire accreditation system. Its purpose is to eliminate any window of ambiguity or potential misrepresentation.

Consider the implications if prior warning were given:

During suspension or withdrawal of accreditation (due to major non-conformities, failure to pay fees, or other serious issues), a body could, in the interim period, continue to market itself as accredited, misleading clients and damaging trust in the SDAB mark.
The immediacy of listing upon initial grant prevents a body from pre-emptively claiming accredited status before the formal decision is ratified and recorded.
It ensures that any changes to the scope—whether expansions after successful assessments or reductions due to failure in certain areas—are reflected in real-time, providing an accurate and current picture of competence.

While the body is not warned before the update, it is formally notified concurrently or immediately after the register is changed. This notification, often via official letter or portal update, provides the body with the updated certificate and listing details for its own records and marketing materials.

In essence, this policy places the needs of the public and the integrity of the accreditation symbol above the convenience of the accredited body. It ensures that the SDAB register is a reliable, real-time source of truth, thereby upholding the transparency and trust that accreditation is designed to foster.

7.3 Ongoing Surveillance: Accreditation is not a one-time event. To ensure continued compliance, SDAB conducts periodic surveillance visits (usually annually) and a full re-assessment every few years (typically a 4-year cycle). The inspection body is also required to notify SDAB of significant changes (e.g., in management, scope, location) and participate in proficiency testing or inter-laboratory comparisons as required.

Conclusion

The accreditation process is a structured partnership between the inspection body and the accreditation body. It demands a deep commitment from the inspection body’s management to establish a culture of quality, technical competence, and unwavering impartiality. While demanding, successful accreditation delivers significant benefits: enhanced market credibility, demonstrable compliance with regulatory and contractual requirements, and a framework for continuous improvement, ultimately leading to greater trust in inspection results worldwide.

Branches

SDAB Accreditation

SDAB Head Office

SDAB Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board
SDAB House
C/O Mr.Garry 54, Glengarnock Avenue,
E-14 3BP Isle Of Dogs, London UK
Tel .: +44-8369083940
email: info@sanatanboards.com
Website: www.sanatanboards.com

MUMBAI Head Office

Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board (SDAB)
SDAB House
B-401, New Om Kaveri Chs. Ltd., Nagindas pada,
Next To Shiv Sena Office, Nallasopara (E)
Tel .: +91-7499991895
email: info@sanatanboards.com
Website: www.sanatanboards.com

DELHI-NCR Regd. Office

Sanatan Dharma Accreditation Board (SDAB)
SDAB House
Asaoti, Dist Palwal
Faridabad Delhi NCR, Haryana
Tel .: +91-7979801035
Fax: +91-250 2341170
Website: www.sanatanboards.com

sanatanboards