by Suelí Fischer Beckert and Renan Ednan Flôres
In the context of metrological confirmation, calibration is an essential process in all quality assurance efforts. Several organizations choose to outsource this activity to accredited laboratories in accordance with the requirements set forth in ISO/IEC 17025: 2017. Organizations understand that accredited laboratory has formal recognition of its technical competence to perform the services within its scope of accreditation. The document ILAC P14: 2020 sets out the requirements for the statement of Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs) and for the evaluation of measurement uncertainty in calibration certificates or reports. However, when analyzing the scope of accredited laboratories in some national calibration bodies, it is possible to observe that, for the same instrument and the same measuring range, different values are attributed to CMC. If the CMC should result from normal calibration operations on the best existing device, what causes this dispersion? How can the customer make effective use of the information contained in accreditation scopes? Yes, organizations can even outsource calibration activities. But the selection of the service provider and the interpretation of the calibration results remain the customer’s responsibility. This paper presents an analysis of accreditation scopes of different national calibration bodies and discusses the qualification of those in charge of metrology management, regarding the knowledge and skills required for activity.
