Understanding Accreditation Equivalencies
A question often arises as to whether one accreditation is better than another. For example, should I be looking for AIHA or A2LA accreditation for microbiological work? Over the past several decades the number of accreditation bodies has risen significantly. So should you prefer the accreditation of one over the other?
What is laboratory accreditation?
Laboratory accreditation is an endorsement of a laboratory by an authoritative body that formally recognizes a lab as competent to carry out specific tasks. This should be distinguished from certification (e.g. ISO 9000 series certifications) by which a third party gives assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements. The key word with accreditation is it is an endorsement of confidence. Whereas a ISO 9000 series certification may review a lab’s management system as being in compliance with the ISO 9000 standard being used, a laboratory accreditation looks at their system to ensure it is compliant with ISO 17025 (a lab-specific set of requirements based on the concepts of the 9000 standards) as well as looking at demonstrations of competency (such as performance in proficiency testing programs).
What is an accreditation body?
Laboratory accreditation is an endorsement of a laboratory by an authoritative body that formally recognizes a lab as competent to carry out specific tasks. This should be distinguished from certification (e.g. ISO 9000 series certifications) by which a third party gives assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements. The key word with accreditation is it is an endorsement of confidence. Whereas a ISO 9000 series certification may review a lab’s management system as being in compliance with the ISO 9000 standard being used, a laboratory accreditation looks at their system to ensure it is compliant with ISO 17025 (a lab-specific set of requirements based on the concepts of the 9000 standards) as well as looking at demonstrations of competency (such as performance in proficiency testing programs).
So are all accreditation bodies equivalent?
The basic answer is “No.” Since each body determines what requirements they will use, and how they expect these requirements to be implemented, there are always differences. However, in recent years a number of conformity assessment bodies have arisen which in essence are accreditors of accreditation bodies. These are usually regional accreditation cooperations established to facilitate trade in a region by promotion of the acceptance of accredited test and calibration results. Like a laboratory accreditation body, these accreditation cooperations adopt a standard by which they evaluate the competence of accrediting bodies to grant accreditations. ISO/IEC 17011 established the basic requirements for accreditation bodies in the same way ISO/IEC establishes requirements for testing and calibration labs. Like an accreditation body performs onsite assessments of a laboratory, the accreditation cooperation requires periodic review of the accreditation body in order to allow the accreditation body to before it will be endorsed by the accreditation cooperation. Therefore, there is a general consistency to accreditation bodies that are recognized by an accreditation cooperation.
Are A2LA and AIHA-LAP, LLC accreditations equivalent?
As noted above, while there may be slight differences in accreditation requirements between organizations, both A2LA and AIHA-LAP, LLC are both signatories to the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation – Mutual Recognition Agreement (APLAC-MRA) for accreditation of testing laboratories, as are NVLAP and others. Only labs that have undergone intensive evaluation in accordance with procedures detailed in the relevant APLAC publications are eligible to be MRA signatories. Each APLAC MRA signatory has demonstrated compliance with the international standard ISO/IEC 17011 and that its accredited facilities are in compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 (laboratories). Each MRA signatory is re-evaluated at least every four years for continued compliance and competence.
Obligations of APLAC MRA signatories include recognition, within its own scope of recognition, the accreditation of a laboratory by other signatories as being equivalent to an accreditation by its own organization. In other words, not only are they deemed competent and compliant by APLAC, each signatory must recognize each other as equivalent for fields that both are recognized by APLAC. Therefore, as a customer of a lab accredited by either organization, you can be confident that they have been independently assessed to essentially identical standards and found to be compliant.
Comparison of A2LA and AIHA Accreditation Programs
| Program Attributes | A2LA | AIHA |
|---|---|---|
| Accredits to ISO /IEC 17025:2005 | ||
| ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation). Mutual Recognition Arrangement | ||
| IAAC (Inter American Accreditation Cooperation). Signatory | ||
| APLAC (Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation). Signatory | ||
| EPA NLLAP (National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program) recognition | ||
| Performs Bi-Annual Onsite Assessments | ||
| Quality System Requirements | ||
| Establish Management Structure | ||
| Requires Document and Record control program | ||
| Contract review program | ||
| Purchasing and Vendor Qualification | ||
| Service to the Customer | ||
| Program for handling Complaints | ||
| Control of non-conforming tests | ||
| Continuous Improvement | ||
| Corrective Action/Preventative Action Programs | ||
| Requires Annual Internal Audit | ||
| Annual Management Review | ||
| Demonstration of Capability for analytical staff | ||
| Requires Method Validation | ||
| Establishment of measure of uncertainty | ||
| Traceability to National Standards | ||
| Ensures quality of reports | ||
| Technical Requirements | ||
| Successful participation in proficiency testing programs | ||
| Participation in inter laboratory round robin program(s) | ||
| Measure of Accuracy – analysis of standard reference materials/laboratory control samples | ||
| Measure of Precision – duplicate/replicate analysis | ||
| Establishment of measure of uncertainty | ||
| Monitoring for contamination control | ||
| Equipment calibrations |


