NACLA Update ACIL Midwinter Meeting February 2006 William J Tilstone President, NACLA

Highlights Board affirmed commitment to NACLA operating as part of the consensus global accreditation community Signed MOU with IAAC Revised NACLA MRA Revised Acceptance Panel procedures Employed Evaluations Coordinator Employed contract Quality Manager Centralized office HQ in Orlando Met with A2LA to hear their concerns

Affirmation to work within consensus global accreditation - Advantages Allows us to model procedures on global best practice Offers way for stakeholders to reduce redundant accreditations and redundant recognitions Essential step in working to provide a “One stop shop” in the U.S.

Affirmation to work within consensus global accreditation - Strategy Active participation in IAAC Direct approach to ILAC in terms of Guide 19 which specifically recognizes that ILAC cannot operate in manner that inhibits competition

Affirmation to work within consensus global accreditation – Other issues Several of the newer ABs are pursuing APLAC recognition  Makes dissent about the MRA redundant Is not the best option for U.S. ABs and their customers  Cost  Duplication  Why go off-shore?

Affirmation to work within consensus global accreditation – Examples of actions taken Board considered NACLA’s obligation as stakeholder member of ILAC  These could be considered as detrimental to NACLA’s interests as they are “one way traffic” requiring NACLA to promote the ILAC MRA but having no reciprocal recognition for us However, NACLA accepts that this obligation must be met, and has recently taken action on three separate matters

MRA with IAAC Is the closest Regional Cooperation Is still in the formative stages Is possible joint peer evaluation partner Is possible partner for other activities such as PT and training

Revised NACLA MRA Part of the problem with addressing signatory obligations under the original MRA was a lack of consensus understanding within NACLA and a lack of awareness of global consensus on interpretation of some parts, such as the requirement to “promote the arrangement”

Revised NACLA MRA – Steps taken Language revised Explanatory guide written All signatories to the original signed the revised MRA

Revised Acceptance Panel Procedures - Preliminary consideration of evaluation report AP procedures revised to allow for more effective preliminary work to be conducted before the evaluation team report is considered by the full panel Intent is to identify and deal with all direct and consequential issues before report goes to full panel

Revised Acceptance Panel Procedures – Revision of scopes of recognition NACLA is unique among accreditation cooperations in having restricted scopes The increasing presence of APLAC in the U.S. reinforces the need to consider aligning our practice with global consensus practice The restricted scope approach has a value in dealing with new, larger, applicant ABs, but APLAC and others have been able to deal with this NACLA is also unique in having a vertical corporate structure, including specifiers, who may have some advantages to gain from a degree of restricted scopes

Evaluations Coordinator and Quality Manager Appointed to improve efficiency and effectiveness Fred Grunder is part-time Evaluations Coordinator Thom Adams is contract Quality Manager

Centralized Office Documentation coordination Central information storage and retrieval  Hard copy  Electronic Now hosting own server and updating to provide effective electronic communication and business procedures

A2LA Asked A2LA for meeting to discuss issues Met in December It is NACLA’s view that all objective issues raised have been dealt with NACLA is open to continuing a dialog with A2LA in the interests of the testing and calibration laboratory community in the U.S.

Next Steps – the ILAC strategy ILAC recognition is the most important of all the matters dealt with in the last year If ILAC moved to permit peer evaluation of NACLA and if NACLA’s operations were of a standard to merit recognition then:  None of the controversies of the last 3 years would arise  ABs and their accredited laboratories in the U.S. would have a cost-effective one-stop-shop for recognition and elimination of redundant accreditations and recognitions

Next Steps – the specifics Need a strong and unified case to be made to ILAC, with the active support of all U.S. signatory, stakeholder and affiliate members to have ILAC establish a mechanism to honor its own obligation under Guide 19 and permit evaluation of NACLA NACLA (and the laboratories) can also only benefit from strong and active participation of individuals and organizations in the U.S. with knowledge and experience in the global accreditation community We know that NACLA is still in its infancy in this regard but the record of progress over the last year shows our commitment is real