Laboratory revocation / suspension accreditation qualification common violations (must pay attention to)

Recently, CNAS officially issued the "2015 CNAS accreditation laboratory special supervision typical case bulletin", for some laboratories can not accurately understand the requirements of accreditation rules, resulting in violations of the notification. Certification Jun recently arranged for nearly 3 years CNAS official notification of typical cases, some of the irregularities will be collated and assembled, for testing laboratory colleagues reference.

1, 2015 typical cases Bulletin

I. dishonesty

(1) the examination report and the original record information are not true;

CNAS Secretariat in May 2015 to a laboratory in Shandong special supervision and evaluation, found that the laboratory there is a test report and the original record information is not true, given the revocation of accreditation processing.

(two) failure to detect fabricated data and use other institutional accreditation marks

In October 2015, when the Secretariat of the CNAS conducted a complaint survey in a laboratory in Shaanxi, it found that the laboratory had falsified the inspection data and used other institutions to identify the identity of the laboratory and gave it the treatment of revoking the accreditation.

Two, ultra approval range

(1) issuing inspection report with CNAS mark during suspension of accreditation period;

Find the CNAS Secretariat in June 2015 special supervision and evaluation of a Zhejiang laboratory, from July 2014 to August during the period of suspension (laboratory offered) issued 10 copies with the CNAS logo inspection report to their suspension of accreditation.

(two) non authorized signatory issues inspection report with CNAS mark

CNAS Secretariat in June 2015 to a laboratory in Zhejiang special supervision and evaluation, found that the laboratory issued by the unauthorized signatory issued with CNAS mark test report, given its suspension accreditation qualification processing.

(three) exceed the scope of approval issued with CNAS mark inspection report

CNAS Secretariat in August 2015 to a laboratory in Guangdong special supervision and evaluation found that the laboratory exists ultra recognition capacity range, issued with CNAS mark detection report, given its suspension accreditation qualification processing.

(four) exceed the scope of approval, issue inspection report with approval status statement

Find the CNAS Secretariat in August 2015 special supervision and evaluation of a Shanghai laboratory, laboratory accreditation testing beyond the parameter range to produce 53 copies of the test report, the report shows that India has a page accredited laboratory accreditation certificate, and declare its approval, given its treatment to suspend accreditation.

(five) according to the new standard which has not been approved, issued a CNAS mark test report

Find the CNAS Secretariat in August 2015 special supervision and evaluation of a Guangdong laboratory, the laboratory has been approved and the ability of food, cosmetics, perfume, oral care class 19 parameters inspection standard standard expired, relates to the technical ability changes, laboratory internal standard change approval, but not in time to apply for change of CNAS according to the new standard, and has not been approved to produce 2300 copies of inspection reports, report using a CNAS logo cover to their suspension of accreditation.

(six) have not recovered the super range inspection report with CNAS mark completely

CNAS found that the Secretariat in August 2015 to investigate complaints of a Hunan laboratory, the laboratory to produce 2 copies of the damper performance test report in September 2012 and April 2013, the report of "slow performance" and "speed performance" and "performance frequency" and "seismic performance test according to the test program not approved by CNAS, November 28, 2013 the laboratory shall report on customer requirements in the CNAS logo cover chapter, November 29, 2013 report on the" send registration form "and" seal registration form "margin" to recover the original note ", to report errors in Chapter recovered after the destruction, but failed to provide a complete record of destruction, identified with CNAS test report 2015 is still in use of related parties. The laboratory has the scope of ultra accreditation, issued with CNAS identification test report, although the report has been recovered, but not complete, CNAS to suspend its approval of qualified treatment.

Three, management confusion

(a) technical records have problems

Find the CNAS Secretariat in September 2015 special supervision and evaluation of a Jiangsu laboratory, there are many problems in laboratory orders, the original records and calibration certificate technology records, to their suspension of accreditation.

(two) technical records are not kept properly

Find the CNAS Secretariat in September 2015 special supervision and evaluation of a Guangdong laboratory, laboratory of contract, the original record and calibration certificate paper and electronic records properly, to their suspension of accreditation.

(three) major changes are not reported

CNAS Secretariat in July 2015 to a laboratory in Jiangsu special supervision and evaluation found that the company has undergone major changes in matters, but did not report the CNAS Secretariat, given its suspension of accreditation processing.

2, 2014 typical cases Bulletin

I. revocation of accreditation

(I) fabricate an annex to the CNAS accreditation certificate;

July 2014 Zhejiang special supervision and review of a calibration laboratory accreditation certificate, find information and CNAS the approval certificate for a customer that the calibration service ability in the annex to the release of attachment is not the same, including font, format and recognition parameters, which are recognized only 5 parameters, but by fabricating parameters as many as 29.

(two) fabricate data and issue a calibration report

In August 2014, when a special inspection and evaluation of a calibration laboratory in Zhejiang was conducted, it was found that there was a situation in which the measurement uncertainty data, the original record and the contents of the calibration certificate were inconsistent.

(three) the whole merged into another laboratory and was not informed in time

July 2014, a testing center in Shanghai