NIST HANDBOOK 150-20 

2005 Edition 

National 

Voluntary

Laboratory 

Accreditation 

Program 

INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

SECURITY TESTING: 

COMMON CRITERIA

Jeffrey Horlick 

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

Division of Standards Services 

Technology Services 

October 2005 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Michelle O'Neill, Acting Under Secretary for Technology 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

William A. Jeffrey, Director 
NVLAP AND THE NVLAP LOGO 

The term NVLAP and the NVLAP logo are federally 

registered certification marks of the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology and the federal 

government, who retain exclusive rights to control 

the use thereof. Permission to use the term and/or 

logo is granted to NVLAP-accredited laboratories for 

the limited purposes of announcing their accredited 

status, and for use on reports that describe only 

testing and calibration within the scope of 

accreditation. NIST reserves the right to control the 

quality of the use of the term NVLAP and of the 

NVLAP logo. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 iii 

Contents 

Contents .........................................................................................................................................iii

Foreword......................................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................viii

1 General information ............................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Scope............................................................................................................................ 1 

1.2 Organization of handbook ........................................................................................... 1 

1.3 Program description..................................................................................................... 1 

1.4 References.................................................................................................................... 2 

1.5 Terms and definitions .................................................................................................. 2 

1.6 Program documentation............................................................................................... 4

2 LAP establishment, development and implementation.......................................................... 4

3 Accreditation process ............................................................................................................. 4 

3.1 General......................................................................................................................... 4 

3.2 Initial accreditation (see Annex A).............................................................................. 5 

3.3 NVLAP renewal of accreditation (see Annex B) ........................................................ 8 

3.4 Increasing the scope of accreditation (see Annex C)................................................... 9 

3.5 Suspending and revoking accreditation ....................................................................... 9

4 Management requirements for accreditation.......................................................................... 9 

4.1 Organization................................................................................................................. 9 

4.2 Management system .................................................................................................. 10 

4.3 Document control ...................................................................................................... 10 

4.4 Review of requests, tenders and contracts ................................................................. 10 

4.5 Subcontracting of tests and calibrations .................................................................... 10 

4.6 Purchasing services and supplies............................................................................... 11 

4.7 Service to the customer.............................................................................................. 11 

4.8 Complaints ................................................................................................................. 11 

4.9 Control of nonconforming testing and/or calibration work ....................................... 11 

4.10 Improvement.............................................................................................................. 11 

4.11 Corrective action........................................................................................................ 11 

4.12 Preventive action........................................................................................................ 11 

4.13 Control of records ...................................................................................................... 11

4.14 Internal audits ............................................................................................................ 12 

4.15 Management reviews ................................................................................................. 12
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 iv 

5 Technical requirements for accreditation............................................................................. 12 

5.1 General....................................................................................................................... 12 

5.2 Personnel.................................................................................................................... 12 

5.3 Accommodation and environmental conditions ........................................................ 14 

5.4 Test and calibration methods and method validation ................................................ 15 

5.5 Equipment.................................................................................................................. 15 

5.6 Measurement traceability........................................................................................... 16 

5.7 Sampling .................................................................................................................... 16 

5.8 Handling of test and calibration items ....................................................................... 16 

5.9 Assuring the quality of test and calibration results.................................................... 17 

5.10 Reporting the results .................................................................................................. 17

6 Additional requirements....................................................................................................... 17 

Annex A........................................................................................................................................ 18 

Annex B ........................................................................................................................................ 24 

Annex C ........................................................................................................................................ 27 

Annex D........................................................................................................................................ 31 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 v 

Foreword 

The NIST Handbook 150 publication series sets forth the procedures, requirements, and guidance for the 

accreditation of testing and calibration laboratories by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (NVLAP). The series is comprised of the following publications: 

• NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements, which contains the general 

procedures and requirements under which NVLAP operates as an unbiased third-party accreditation 

body; 

• NIST Handbook 150-xx program-specific handbooks, which supplement NIST Handbook 150 by 

providing additional requirements, guidance, and interpretive information applicable to specific 

NVLAP laboratory accreditation programs (LAPs). 

The program-specific handbooks are not standalone documents, but rather are companion documents to 

NIST Handbook 150. They tailor the general criteria found in NIST Handbook 150 to the specific tests, 

calibrations, or types of tests or calibrations covered by a LAP. 

NIST Handbook 150-20, NVLAP Information Technology Security Testing: Common Criteria, presents 

the technical requirements and guidance for the accreditation of laboratories under the NVLAP Common 

Criteria Testing LAP. The 2005 edition incorporates changes resulting from the release of the newest 

editions of ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration 

laboratories, and NIST Handbook 150, as well as editorial improvements. The 2005 edition of NIST 

Handbook 150-20 supersedes and replaces all previous editions. 

The handbook was revised with the participation of technical experts in applicable fields of testing 

concerning information technology security and the Common Criteria, and was approved by NVLAP. 

The following main changes have been made to this handbook with respect to the previous edition: 

• all references to applicable international guides and standards have been updated; 

• Lab Bulletin LB-5-2001, Written Procedures, has been incorporated into Annex D; 

• the sequence of NVLAP assessment activities and the proficiency testing program have been 

changed; 

• on-site assessment checklists and the test method selection list are not included in order that they may 

be provided as separate documents, which may be updated at different intervals than the handbook; 

• the body of the handbook has been restructured to conform with internationally accepted rules for the 

structure and drafting of standards, where appropriate, to promote ease of use and understanding. 

Annexes A through C of this handbook show the sequence of events and the responsible parties for initial 

accreditation, renewal of accreditation, and changes in scope of accreditation. 

This handbook is also available on the NVLAP web site (http://www.nist.gov/nvlap). 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 vi 

Questions or comments concerning this handbook should be submitted to NVLAP, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-2140; phone: 301-

975-4016; fax: 301-926-2884; e-mail: nvlap@nist.gov. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 vii 

Acknowledgments 

This document was revised by John Nilles of The Aerospace Corporation under the guidance of Jeffrey 

Horlick (NVLAP Technical Advisor) and Jean Schaffer (NIAP Director). These revisions include 

technical changes to update the handbook based upon National Information Assurance Partnership’s 

(NIAP) experience since the start of CCEVS evaluations in 2000, and format changes to match NIST 

Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements. The author would like to acknowledge 

the valuable insights and comments provided by James Donndelinger, Ken Elliott, Helmut Kurth, Alton 

Lewis, Robin Medlock, David Ochel, and Mario Tinto. 

The initial technical requirements and checklist for Common Criteria Testing Laboratory (CCTL) 

accreditation were developed by Julie Connolly of the MITRE Corporation, Robin Medlock of Mitretek 

Systems, and Christine Cheetham and Charles Menk of the National Security Agency, under the guidance 

of Jeffrey Horlick (NVLAP) and Keith Brewster (NSA). Those authors would like to acknowledge the 

valuable insights and comments provided by Ellen Flahavin, Arnold Johnson, Lisa Carnahan, and 

Annabelle Lee of NIST. The requirements in the previous version of this handbook were also strongly 

influenced by the NVLAP Cryptographic Module Testing and the NVLAP POSIX Laboratory 

Accreditation Programs. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 viii 

Introduction 

The National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP), a partnership between the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Security Agency (NSA), has established a program to 

evaluate conformance of Information Technology (IT) products to international standards. The program 

is known as the NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme for Information Technology 

Security, abbreviated as the Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme (CCEVS), which is 

responsible for issuing Common Criteria certificates for IT security evaluations. This certificate is issued 

if the security evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the Scheme requirements using the 

Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation (Common Criteria or CC) and the 

Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (Common Evaluation 

Methodology or CEM). 

NIAP requested that NVLAP establish a program to accredit laboratories conducting security evaluations 

using the Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology. A laboratory desiring accreditation 

for Common Criteria Testing shall meet the requirements presented in NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP 

Procedures and General Requirements, and this handbook. NIAP manages the day-to-day operations of 

the CCEVS, while NVLAP addresses laboratory accreditation. In order to ensure continuing technical 

competence, NIAP sets additional requirements on Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs) 

during initial evaluation(s) and every two years during ongoing operations. 

A CCTL is accredited to perform Common Criteria-based security evaluations of Protection Profiles, 

Security Targets, and IT products using the Common Criteria assurance classes APE, ASE, and assurance 

packages EAL levels 1 through 4, and the corresponding Common Evaluation Methodology. An IT 

product can be a single product or multiple IT products configured as an IT system or system solution to 

meet certain consumer needs. The testing occurs in a testing facility or a customer’s site, but not 

generally in the actual operational environments. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 1 

1 General information 

1.1 Scope 

1.1.1 The purpose of this handbook is to set out procedures and technical requirements for accreditation 

of Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs). 

1.1.2 This handbook complements and supplements the procedures and general requirements found in 

NIST Handbook 150. The scope of the Common Criteria Testing (ITST CC) program is the conduct of 

IT security evaluations using the Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology, providing a 

measure of confidence that such laboratories are capable of performing Common Criteria Security 

evaluations under the requirements of the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP). IT 

security evaluations assess conformance of a Protection Profile (PP), Security Target (ST), or IT product 

with a specified set of Common Criteria requirements. 

1.1.3 The interpretive comments and additional requirements contained in this handbook make the 

general NVLAP criteria specifically applicable to the ITST CC program. Specific circumstances under 

which departures from the NVLAP general procedures are allowable within the scope of the program are 

also addressed in this handbook. 

1.1.4 The requirements identified in this handbook, including the requirements in the annexes, are 

normative (i.e., mandatory). In addition, the NIST Handbook 150-20 Checklist for the ITST CC program 

is normative and expands upon the requirements outlined in this document. 

1.2 Organization of handbook 

1.2.1 The requirements of Handbook 150, the interpretations and specific requirements in this 

handbook, and the requirements in the program-specific checklist must be combined to produce the 

criteria for accreditation in the ITST CC program. 

1.2.2 The numbering and titles for first and most second level headings of this handbook match those 

of NIST Handbook 150. Lower level heading are generally specific to the ITST CC program. In some 

cases upper level headings have been included in the document with no additional text. In these cases, 

refer to NIST Handbook 150. 

1.2.3 Annexes A through D are normative (contain requirements). 

1.3 Program description 

1.3.1 The Common Criteria is a set of functional and assurance IT security requirements that was 

developed to provide a common baseline against which IT products and systems can be evaluated. The 

Common Evaluation Methodology describes a common approach for conducting IT security evaluations 

using the Common Criteria. The Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology were 

developed and sponsored by the governments of the United States (represented by NIST and NSA), 

Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Common Criteria Testing will 

incorporate new versions of the Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology as they evolve. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 2 

1.3.2 NIAP, a partnership between NIST and NSA, requested the development of the Common Criteria 

Testing program to accredit laboratories that conduct IT security evaluations under CCEVS. CCEVS is 

the NIAP program to manage the evaluation and validation of IT security products using the Common 

Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology. IT security products validated by this program will 

receive a Common Criteria certificate and be listed on the NIAP Validated Products List. A mutual 

recognition arrangement signed by United States government agencies and similar agencies representing 

14 other economies (as of 2004), promotes the acceptance of products evaluated and validated in one 

economy by all signatories. 

1.4 References 

The following documents are referenced in this handbook. For dated references, only the edition cited 

applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any 

amendments) shall apply within one year of publication or within another time limit specified by 

regulations or other requirement documents. 

1.4.1 NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements, available at 

<http://www.nist.gov/nvlap> 

1.4.2 NIAP scheme publications, available at < http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme/GuidanceDocs.html > 

— NIAP Scheme Publication #1, NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme for IT 

Security - Organization, Management, and Concept of Operations

— NIAP Scheme Publication #2, NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme for IT 

Security - Validation Body Standard Operating Procedures 

— NIAP Scheme Publication #3, NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme for IT 

Security - Guidance to Validators of IT Security Evaluations 

— NIAP Scheme Publication #4, NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme for IT 

Security - Guidance to Common Criteria Testing Laboratories 

— NIAP Scheme Publication #5, NIAP Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme for IT 

Security - Guidance to Sponsors of IT Security Evaluations 

1.4.3 Documents available at the CCEVS web site, < http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme/> 

— Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Parts 1 through 3 

— Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM) 

— Assurance Continuity: CCRA Requirements 

— Arrangement on the Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates in the Field of Information 

Technology Security 

1.5 Terms and definitions 

For the purposes of this handbook, the terms and definitions given in NIST Handbook 150, the Common 

Criteria, the NIAP Scheme publications, and the following apply. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 3 

1.5.1 

Common Criteria certificate 

Formal recognition by the NIAP Validation Body that the IT security evaluation has been conducted in 

accordance with the Common Criteria Scheme requirements using the Common Criteria and the Common 

Evaluation Methodology. A product that has received a Common Criteria certificate is placed on NIAP’s 

Validated Products List. 

1.5.2 

evaluation 

The assessment of a Protection Profile, Security Target, or IT product against a set of Common Criteria 

requirements using the Common Evaluation Methodology. This term is consistent with the NVLAP 

notion of “testing.” 

1.5.3 

Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 

A package of Common Criteria assurance requirements that represents a point on the Common Criteria 

predefined assurance scale. At present, the Common Criteria defines seven hierarchical EALs, from 

EAL1 to EAL7; the higher EALs encompass the requirements of the lower EALs. NVLAP accredits for 

only assurance levels EAL1 through EAL4 at this time. 

1.5.4 

IT product 

A package of IT software, firmware, and/or hardware, providing functionality designed for use or 

incorporation within a multiplicity of systems. An IT product can be a single product or multiple IT 

products configured as an IT system or system solution to meet certain consumer needs. 

1.5.5 

Protection Profile (PP) 

An implementation-independent set of security requirements for a category of IT products that meet 

specific consumer needs. 

1.5.6 

Security Target (ST) 

A set of security requirements and specifications to be used as the basis for evaluation under the Common 

Criteria of an identified Target of Evaluation (TOE). The Security Target specifies the security enforcing 

functions of the TOE. It also specifies the security objectives, the threats to those objectives, and any 

specific security mechanisms that are employed. 

1.5.7 

Target of Evaluation (TOE) 

An IT product and its associated administrator and user guidance documentation that is the subject of a 

security evaluation under the Common Criteria. 

1.5.8 

validation 

The process carried out by the CCEVS Validation Body leading to the issue of a Common Criteria 

certificate. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 4 

1.6 Program documentation 

1.6.1 General 

NVLAP checklists enable assessors to document the assessment of a laboratory against the NVLAP 

requirements found in NIST Handbook 150, this handbook, and in some cases, the checklists themselves. 

Checklists contain definitive statements or questions about all aspects of the NVLAP criteria for 

accreditation, and form part of the On-Site Assessment Report (see NIST Handbook 150). Use of 

checklists helps to ensure the completeness, objectivity, and uniformity of the on-site assessment process. 

The current version of each checklist is available on the NVLAP web site <http://www.nist.gov/nvlap>. 

1.6.2 NIST Handbook 150 Checklist 

All NVLAP programs use the NIST Handbook 150 Checklist (formerly called the General Operations 

Checklist), which contains the requirements published in NIST Handbook 150. The checklist items are 

numbered to correspond to clauses 4 and 5 and annexes A and B of NIST Handbook 150. 

1.6.3 NIST Handbook 150-20 Checklist 

The NIST Handbook 150-20 Checklist (also referred to as the Common Criteria Program-Specific 

Checklist) addresses the requirements specific to the Common Criteria LAP. The checklist items are 

numbered to correspond to clauses 4 and 5 of NIST Handbook 150-20. 

1.6.4 NVLAP Lab Bulletins

NVLAP Lab Bulletins are issued to laboratories and assessors, when needed, to clarify program-specific 

requirements and to provide information about program additions and changes. 

2 LAP establishment, development and implementation 

This clause contains no information additional to that provided in NIST Handbook 150, clause 2. 

3 Accreditation process 

3.1 General 

3.1.1 This section discusses the assessment and accreditation process for Common Criteria Testing 

Laboratories. The accreditation process includes both NIAP and NVLAP components. This handbook 

documents only the NVLAP portion of the accreditation process. The NIAP portion of this process is 

documented in NIAP scheme publications. 

3.1.2 The assessment process consists of a NVLAP review of the laboratory quality system 

documentation, an initial on-site assessment visit, proficiency testing, and a full on-site visit assessment. 

3.1.3 The proficiency testing program for this LAP is administered by NIAP according to NVLAP 

requirements. The proficiency test consists of the laboratory conducting an evaluation using the Common 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 5 

Criteria in accordance with NIAP CCEVS requirements. Successful completion of the evaluation is a 

requirement for NVLAP accreditation. 

3.1.4 Annexes A, B, and C give additional details of the assessment process including the timeline and 

responsibilities of the parties involved (NVLAP, NIAP, and the laboratory). 

3.2 Initial accreditation (see Annex A) 

3.2.1 General 

3.2.1.1 It is important to note that the candidate laboratory will only be accredited at the EAL of the 

initial evaluation. For example, if the initial evaluation is at EAL2, then the candidate laboratory will only 

be accredited to perform evaluations at EAL2 and EAL1 and APE and ASE evaluations. However, an 

accredited laboratory can change its scope of accreditation (e.g., increase the assurance level to which it is 

accredited) by submitting a new application to NIAP and NVLAP and successfully completing the initial 

evaluation at a higher EAL. 

3.2.1.2 A laboratory may not perform more than two initial evaluations simultaneously. 

3.2.1.3 In order to ensure the independence of the evaluation, neither the candidate laboratory nor other 

divisions within its parent corporation shall provide consulting services (e.g., develop evaluation 

evidence), for the products that are evaluated during initial evaluations. 

3.2.2 Management system review 

3.2.2.1 Prior to applying to NVLAP, the laboratory shall have a fully implemented management system. 

A copy of the quality manual and relevant associated documents are sent to NVLAP with the application 

forms. 

3.2.2.2 Prior to the initial on-site assessment, one or more NVLAP assessors are assigned to review the 

documents to ensure they cover all aspects of the management system and, if followed, satisfy the 

requirements in NIST Handbook 150 and this handbook. During the review, the assessor may identify 

nonconformities and require changes to the management system so that it meets the requirements. 

3.2.3 Initial on-site assessment 

3.2.3.1 Once the assessor has determined that the management system meets the requirements, an initial 

on-site assessment will be scheduled. The purpose of the initial on-site visit is to ensure that the 

laboratory has the technical staff, capabilities and management system components necessary to 

successfully complete the initial Common Criteria evaluation. 

3.2.3.2 The initial on-site visit may not cover all the NVLAP requirements and may not cite all 

nonconformities. The laboratory will have the opportunity to make changes and improvements based on 

the assessment before conducting the initial evaluation. 

3.2.3.3 Nonconformities identified during the initial on-site shall be corrected prior to the completion of 

the accreditation process. Nonconformities that impact the initial evaluation shall be corrected prior to 

starting the initial evaluation. The laboratory must provide the assessor with a response to the initial onsite assessment report. The assessor will review the response and may ask for additional information. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 6 

3.2.3.4 Once the assessor has determined that the management system is mature enough to support the 

rest of the accreditation process, he or she will notify NVLAP that the laboratory is ready to begin the 

initial evaluation. 

3.2.4 Proficiency testing using an initial evaluation 

3.2.4.1 In order to receive NVLAP accreditation, the laboratory shall demonstrate its competence to 

conduct Common Criteria evaluations. The NVLAP proficiency testing requirement will be met by the 

laboratory completing a commercial evaluation with the oversight of the NIAP CCEVS. NVLAP and 

NIAP have cooperated in designing a program that allows the laboratory to enter into a commercial 

evaluation, meet the NVLAP proficiency testing requirements, and produce an Evaluation Technical 

Report that can be validated by NIAP. 

3.2.4.2 When NVLAP informs NIAP that the initial on-site assessment requirements have been met, 

NIAP will contact the laboratory to begin planning the initial evaluation. NIAP evaluation and validation 

requirements are described in NIAP publications. 

3.2.4.3 It is important to note that the laboratory cannot be granted accreditation unless: 

• the laboratory has evaluated the evidence and provided accurate verdicts for all appropriate 

assurance classes; 

• the laboratory staff has demonstrated its understanding of and competence to apply the 

Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology during the initial evaluation; 

• the laboratory has exercised its quality system and has produced appropriate records of all 

evaluation activities. 

3.2.5 Full on-site visit 

3.2.5.1 The laboratory shall perform a complete internal audit and management review of its quality 

system and the activities and records related to its initial evaluation prior to the full on-site visit. The 

laboratory may choose to perform portions of the internal audit at regular intervals over the course of its 

initial evaluation or it may choose to perform it, in its entirety, at the completion of the evaluation. In 

either case, the internal audit and management review shall be completed prior to the full on-site visit. 

3.2.5.2 Once the candidate laboratory successfully completes all other accreditation requirements, 

NVLAP will schedule the full on-site visit. 

3.2.5.3 Typically two NVLAP assessors will perform the full on-site visit over a two-and-one-half day 

period. The assessment will take place at the laboratory site. 

3.2.5.4 The laboratory shall have its facilities and equipment in good working order and be ready for 

examination according to the requirements identified in this handbook, NIST Handbook 150, the NIST 

Handbook 150-20 Checklist, and the laboratory’s quality manual. Efforts will be made to minimize 

disruption to the normal working routines during the assessment. The assessors will need time and 

workspace to complete assessment documentation during their time at the laboratory site. 

3.2.5.5 The assessors will use the NIST Handbook 150 Checklist and the NIST Handbook 150-20 

Checklist. The checklists, based on NIST Handbook 150 and the technical specifics contained in this 

handbook, ensure that the assessment is complete and that all assessors cover the same items at each 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 7 

laboratory. The assessors may request additional information in an effort to clarify checklist responses or 

delve more deeply into a technical issue. 

3.2.5.6 The activities covered during a typical on-site assessment are described below. The assessor, 

prior to the visit, will provide a specific agenda. 

a) Opening meeting: The assessors meet with laboratory management and supervisory personnel to 

explain the purpose of the on-site assessment and to discuss the schedule for the assessment 

activities. Information provided by the laboratory on its application form may be discussed 

during this meeting. At the discretion of the laboratory manager, other staff members may attend 

this meeting. 

b) Staff interviews: The assessors will ask the laboratory manager to assist in arranging times for 

individual interviews with laboratory staff members. While it is not necessary for the assessors to 

talk to all staff members, they will select staff members representing all aspects of the laboratory. 

Assessors will also talk to staff members who participated in the initial evaluation. 

Laboratory personnel should not answer any question they do not feel qualified to answer. The 

assessors usually consider knowing whom to ask or where to find the answer an acceptable 

response. 

c) Records review: The assessors will review laboratory documentation, including the quality 

system, quality manual, equipment and maintenance records, record-keeping procedures, testing 

procedures, laboratory evaluation records and reports, personnel competency records, personnel 

training plans and records, procedures for updating pertinent information (e.g., Common Criteria 

or Common Evaluation Methodology versions, NIAP Validation Body guidance or 

interpretations, or the validated products list), and safeguards for the protection of vendorsensitive and proprietary information. 

The assessors do not need access to employee information that may be considered sensitive or 

private such as salary, medical information, or performance reviews for work done outside the 

scope of the laboratory’s accreditation. However, this information is often stored together with 

technical information that the assessors will need to check (e.g., job descriptions, resumes, and 

technical performance reviews). In these cases, the assessors will work with the candidate 

laboratory to ensure that they are able to perform their review without violating individual 

privacy. At the discretion of the laboratory, a member of its Human Resources Department may 

be present during the review of personnel information. 

d) Audit and management review: The assessors will review and discuss the laboratory's internal 

audit and management review activities with the laboratory staff. The discussion will include all 

aspects of those activities including the quality system procedures, the audit findings, the results 

of the management review, and the actions taken to resolve problems identified. 

e) Proficiency testing: The assessors will discuss all aspects of the initial evaluation/proficiency test 

with laboratory staff. Evaluation methodology and the records documenting the laboratory’s 

execution of that methodology will be reviewed and discussed. 

f) Issues from initial on-site: The assessor will review and discuss the initial on-site assessment. 

This will normally include verification that all nonconformities have been satisfactorily addressed 

and a review of concerns and comments previously identified. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 8 

g) Closing meeting: At the end of the on-site assessment, an exit briefing is held with the laboratory 

manager and staff to discuss the assessors’ findings. During the visit the assessor will have 

categorized all problems identified as nonconformities, concerns or comments. They will be 

discussed at the exit briefing and resolutions may be mutually agreed upon. The assessors, in 

their findings, specifically note items that have been corrected during the on-site assessment 

along with any recommendations for other action(s). The process for resolving nonconformities 

identified during the on-site is documented in NIST Handbook 150. Concerns should be given 

serious consideration by the laboratory. Concerns expressed during one on-site visit may become 

nonconformities at a subsequent on-site visit. 

Any disagreements between the laboratory and the assessors will be referred to NVLAP for 

resolution. 

h) On-site assessment report: The assessors complete an on-site assessment report, which 

summarizes the findings. This report normally consists of the On-Site Report, the NIST 

Handbook 150 Checklist, and the NIST Handbook 150-20 Checklist. The assessors and the 

laboratory’s Authorized Representative sign the report. A copy of the complete report is given to 

the laboratory representative. 

3.2.6 NVLAP review 

3.2.6.1 Once the full on-site visit has been completed and all nonconformities have been resolved, 

NVLAP will make the final decision on accreditation. The NVLAP decision will be based upon 

information drawn from the quality system review, on-site visits, and the proficiency testing. This 

decision may be to grant accreditation, require additional work before accreditation can be granted, or to 

deny accreditation. 

3.2.6.2 The Chief of NVLAP is responsible for all NVLAP accreditation actions. Once a decision has 

been made, the candidate laboratory is then notified of the outcome. 

3.3 NVLAP renewal of accreditation (see Annex B) 

3.3.1 Accreditation is renewed annually. The activities and fees associated with renewal will vary 

depending upon the year in which accreditation is being renewed due to the cost of on-site assessments. 

NVLAP will send to each laboratory a renewal package and description of required activities and fees. 

3.3.2 In the first renewal year and every two years thereafter, an on-site assessment of the laboratory is 

conducted to determine compliance with the NVLAP criteria and continued competence. The scope and 

format of this assessment is the same as was previously documented for the NVLAP full on-site 

assessment visit. 

3.3.3 Beginning in the middle of the second year of accreditation and every two years thereafter, NIAP 

CCEVS requires that the laboratory demonstrate its continued proficiency to perform Common Criteria 

evaluations by conducting a commercial evaluation under the oversight of a NIAP Technical Oversight 

Panel (TOP). This evaluation must be pre-arranged with NIAP and must be at the highest EAL for which 

accreditation has been granted. At the successful completion of the evaluation, NIAP will report to 

NVLAP the results of the proficiency testing and any nonconformities. This demonstration will serve to 

meet the NVLAP proficiency testing requirement. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 9 

3.3.4 The laboratory scope of accreditation will be based upon the EAL of the proficiency test. If a 

laboratory does not demonstrate proficiency at its highest scope of accreditation in two consecutive 

proficiency tests, its scope of accreditation will be reduced to the EAL of the most recent proficiency test. 

3.4 Increasing the scope of accreditation (see Annex C) 

3.4.1 A laboratory that is not accredited to the highest available scope of accreditation may at any time 

request to increase its scope of accreditation. To be granted this increase in scope, the laboratory shall 

conduct an appropriate proficiency test at the higher EAL. The proficiency test process will be similar to 

the process for an initial evaluation. 

3.4.2 NVLAP will review the request for increase in scope and, at its option, may perform an on-site 

assessment before or after the proficiency testing. NVLAP will notify NIAP CCEVS of the application 

for increase in scope and the need for proficiency testing. After all activities have been completed 

NVLAP will review the results and make a decision on accreditation. 

3.4.3 In order to ensure the independence of the evaluation, neither the laboratory nor other divisions 

within its parent corporation shall provide consulting services (e.g., develop evaluation evidence), for the 

products that are evaluated for the increase in NVLAP scope of accreditation. 

3.5 Suspending and revoking accreditation 

3.5.1 The NVLAP procedures for suspending and revoking accreditation are given in NIST Handbook 

150. 

3.5.2 Significant changes in key technical personnel or facilities may result in a NVLAP monitoring 

visit(s), increased oversight by NIAP, and/or suspension of accreditation. Loss of key personnel may 

result in immediate suspension. 

3.5.3 If the laboratory does not demonstrate continued competence to perform Common Criteria 

evaluations or the NIAP oversight identifies significant additional areas of concern, the laboratory’s 

accreditation may be suspended or revoked. 

3.5.4 Failure to appropriately address and resolve complaints from customers, NIAP, or other interested 

parties may result in NVLAP surveillance activity, additional proficiency testing, and/or suspension or 

revocation of accreditation. 

4 Management requirements for accreditation 

4.1 Organization 

4.1.1 The laboratory shall establish and maintain policies and procedures for maintaining laboratory 

impartiality and integrity in the conduct of Information Technology security evaluations. When 

conducting evaluations under the NIAP Common Criteria Scheme, the laboratory policies and procedures 

shall ensure that: 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 10 

a) laboratory staff members cannot both develop and evaluate the same Protection Profile, Security 

Target, or IT product, and 

b) laboratory staff members cannot provide consulting services for and then participate in the 

evaluation of the same Protection Profile, Security Target, or IT product. 

4.1.2 The laboratory shall have physical and electronic controls augmented with an explicit policy and 

set of procedures for maintaining separation, both physical and electronic, between the laboratory 

evaluators and laboratory consultants, product developers, system integrators, and others who may have 

an interest in and/or may unduly influence the evaluation outcome. 

4.1.3 The management system shall include policies and procedures to ensure the protection of 

proprietary information. This protection shall specify how proprietary information will be protected from 

persons outside the laboratory, from visitors to the laboratory, from laboratory personnel without a need 

to know, and from other unauthorized persons. 

4.2 Management system 

4.2.1 The management system requirements are designed to promote laboratory practices that ensure 

technical accuracy and integrity of the security evaluation and adherence to quality assurance practices 

appropriate to Common Criteria Testing. The laboratory shall maintain a management system that fully 

documents the laboratory's policies, practices, and the specific steps taken to ensure the quality of the IT 

security evaluations. 

4.2.2 The reference documents, standards, and publications listed in 1.4 shall be available for use by 

laboratory staff developing and maintaining the management system and conducting evaluations. 

4.2.3 Each applicant and accredited laboratory shall have written and implemented procedures as 

described in Annex D. 

4.2.4 Records shall be kept of all management system activities. 

4.3 Document control 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.4 Review of requests, tenders and contracts 

The procedures for review of contracts shall include procedures to ensure that the laboratory has adequate 

staff and resources to meet its evaluation schedule and complete evaluations in a timely manner. 

4.5 Subcontracting of tests and calibrations 

NVLAP defines subcontracting of tests and calibrations to be the use of testing and calibration services 

outside of the laboratory to perform tests that are outside the laboratory's scope of accreditation, e.g., EMI 

testing or FIPS 140 validation. Subcontracting is not used to describe a mechanism by which the 

laboratory employs staff members. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 11 

4.6 Purchasing services and supplies 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.7 Service to the customer 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.8 Complaints 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.9 Control of nonconforming testing and/or calibration work 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.10 Improvement 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.11 Corrective action 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.12 Preventive action 

There are no requirements additional to those set forth in NIST Handbook 150. 

4.13 Control of records 

4.13.1 The laboratory shall maintain a functional record-keeping system that is used to track each 

security evaluation. Records shall be easily accessible and contain complete information for each 

evaluation. Required records of evaluation activities shall be traceable to Common Criteria evaluator 

actions and Common Evaluation Methodology work units. Computer-based records shall contain entries 

indicating the date created and the individual(s) who performed the work, along with any other 

information required by the management system. Entries in laboratory notebooks shall be dated and 

signed or initialed. All records shall be maintained in accordance with laboratory policies and procedures 

and in a manner that ensures record integrity. There shall be appropriate back-ups and archives. 

4.13.2 There must be enough evaluation evidence in the records so an independent body, including 

NVLAP and CCEVS, can determine what evaluation work was actually performed for each work unit and 

can concur with the verdict. Records include evaluator notebooks, records relating to the product, workunit level records, and client-site records. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 12 

4.13.3 NIAP requires that laboratory records be retained for a period of at least five years. Beyond this 

requirement, laboratory records shall be maintained, released, or destroyed in accordance with the 

laboratory’s proprietary information policy and contractual agreements with customers. 

4.14 Internal audits 

4.14.1 The internal audit shall cover the laboratory management system and the application of the 

management system to all laboratory activities. The audit shall cover compliance with NVLAP, NIAP, 

contractual, and laboratory management system requirements. Audits shall cover all aspects of the 

evaluation activities, including the evaluation work performed. 

4.14.2 In the case where only one member of the laboratory staff is competent to conduct a specific 

aspect of a test method, and performing an audit of work in this area would result in that person auditing 

his or her own work, then audits may be conducted by another staff member. The audit shall cover the 

evaluation methodology for that test method and shall include a review of documented procedures and 

instructions, adherence to procedures and instructions, and review of previous audit reports. External 

experts may also be used in these situations. 

4.14.3 The most recent internal audit report shall be available for review during NVLAP on-site 

assessments. 

4.14.4 The laboratory shall perform at least one complete internal audit prior to the first full on-site 

assessment (see 3.2.5). A partial internal audit should be performed prior to the initial on-site assessment 

(see 3.2.3). The records will be reviewed before or during the on-site assessment visit. 

4.15 Management reviews 

4.15.1 The most recent management review report shall be available for review during NVLAP on-site 

assessments. 

4.15.2 The laboratory shall perform at least one management review prior to the first full on-site 

assessment (see 3.2.5). A management review should be performed prior to the initial on-site assessment 

(see 3.2.3). The records will be reviewed before or during the on-site assessment visit. 

5 Technical requirements for accreditation 

5.1 General 

The quality manual shall contain, or refer to, documentation that describes and details the laboratory's 

implementation of procedures covering all of the technical requirements in NIST Handbook 150 and this 

handbook. 

5.2 Personnel 

5.2.1 The laboratory shall maintain a competent administrative and technical staff appropriate for 

Common Criteria- based IT security evaluations. The laboratory shall maintain position descriptions, 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 13 

training records and resumes for responsible supervisory personnel and laboratory staff members who 

have an effect on the outcome of security evaluations. 

5.2.2 The laboratory shall maintain a list of personnel designated to fulfill NVLAP requirements 

including: laboratory director, Authorized Representative, Approved Signatories, evaluation team leaders 

and senior evaluators. The laboratory shall also identify a staff member as quality manager who has 

overall responsibility for the management system, the quality system, and maintenance of the 

management system documents. An individual may be assigned or appointed to serve in more than one 

position; however, to the extent possible, the laboratory director and the quality manager positions should 

be independently staffed. 

5.2.3 The laboratory shall notify both NVLAP and NIAP within 30 days of any change in key 

personnel. When key laboratory staff are added, the notification of changes shall include a current 

resume for each new staff member. 

5.2.4 Laboratories shall document the required qualifications for each staff position. The staff 

information may be kept in the official personnel folders or in separate, official folders that contain only 

the information that the NVLAP assessors need to review. 

5.2.5 Laboratory staff members who conduct IT security evaluation activities shall have a Bachelor of 

Science in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or related technical discipline or equivalent 

experience. 

5.2.6 Laboratory staff collectively shall have knowledge or experience in the following areas: operating 

systems, data structures, design/analysis of algorithms, database systems, programming languages, 

computer systems architectures, and networking. In addition, the laboratory staff shall have knowledge or 

experience for any specific technologies upon which an evaluation is conducted. 

5.2.7 The laboratory shall have documented a detailed description of its training program for new and 

current staff members. Each new staff member shall be trained for assigned duties. The training program 

shall be updated and current staff members shall be retrained when the Common Criteria, Common 

Evaluation Methodology, or scope of accreditation changes, or when the individuals are assigned new 

responsibilities. Each staff member may receive training for assigned duties either through on-the-job 

training, formal classroom study, attendance at conferences, or another appropriate mechanism. Training 

materials that are maintained within the laboratory shall be kept up-to-date. 

5.2.8 The laboratory shall review annually the competence of each staff member for each test method 

the staff member is authorized to conduct. The staff member’s immediate supervisor, or a designee 

appointed by the laboratory director, shall conduct annually an assessment and an observation of 

performance for each staff member. A record of the annual review of each staff member shall be dated 

and signed by the supervisor and the employee. A description of competency review programs shall be 

maintained in the management system. 

5.2.9 Individuals hired to perform Common Criteria testing activities are sometimes referred to as 

subcontractors. NVLAP does not make a distinction between laboratory employees and individuals hired 

under a subcontracting agreement. NVLAP requires that the CCTL maintain responsibility for and 

control of any work performed within its scope of accreditation. To that end, the CCTL shall ensure all 

individuals performing evaluation activities satisfy all NVLAP requirements, irrespective of the means by 

which individuals are compensated (e.g., the CCTL shall ensure all evaluators receive proper training and 

are subject to annual performance reviews, etc.). 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 14 

5.2.10 The records for each staff member having an effect on the outcome of evaluations shall include: 

position description, resume/CV/bio (matching person to job), duties assigned, annual competence 

review, and training records and training plans. 

5.2.11 In order to maintain confidentiality and impartiality, the laboratory shall maintain proper 

separation between personnel conducting evaluations and other personnel inside the laboratory or outside 

the laboratory, but inside the parent organization. 

5.3 Accommodation and environmental conditions 

5.3.1 The laboratory shall have adequate facilities to conduct IT security evaluations. This includes 

facilities for security evaluation, staff training, record keeping, document storage, and software storage. 

5.3.2 A protection system shall be in place to safeguard customer proprietary hardware, software, test 

data, electronic and paper records, and other materials. This system shall protect the proprietary materials 

and information from personnel outside the laboratory, visitors to the laboratory, laboratory personnel 

without a need to know, and other unauthorized persons. Laboratories shall have systems (e.g., firewall, 

intrusion detection) in place to protect internal systems from untrusted external entities. If evaluation 

activities are conducted at more than one location, all locations shall meet NVLAP requirements and 

mechanisms shall be in place to ensure secure communication between all locations. 

5.3.3 The laboratory shall have regularly updated protection for all systems against viruses and other 

malware. The laboratory shall have an effective backup system to ensure that data and records can be 

restored in the event of their loss. 

5.3.4 Laboratory networks used to conduct ATE and AVA evaluation activities shall be completely 

isolated. 

5.3.5 If the laboratory is conducting multiple simultaneous evaluations, it shall maintain a system of 

separation between the products of different customers and evaluations. This includes the product under 

evaluation, the test platform, peripherals, documentation, electronic media, manuals, and records. 

PKI enabled electronic mail (DOD class 3 email certificates) capability is required for communications 

with the NIAP/CCEVS. Internet access also is required for obtaining revisions to the Common Criteria, 

Common Evaluation Methodology, guidance, and interpretations. 

5.3.6 If evaluation activities will be conducted outside of the laboratory, the management system shall 

include appropriate procedures for conducting security evaluation activities at customer sites or other offsite locations. For example, customer site procedures may explain how to secure the site, where to store 

records and documentation, and how to control access to the test facility. 

5.3.7 If the laboratory is conducting its evaluation at the customer site or other location outside the 

laboratory facility, the environment shall conform, as appropriate, to the requirements for the laboratory 

environment. If a customer’s system on which an evaluation is conducted is potentially open to access by 

unauthorized entities during evaluation, the evaluation laboratory shall control the evaluation 

environment. This is to ensure that the systems are in a defined state compliant with the requirements for 

the evaluation before starting to perform evaluation work and that the systems ensure that unauthorized 

entities do not gain access to the system during evaluation. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 15 

5.4 Test and calibration methods and method validation 

5.4.1 For this program, the test methods of ISO/IEC 17025 are analogous to evaluation methodology 

using the Common Criteria (CC), the Common Evaluation Methodology (CEM), and additional 

laboratory-developed methodology. The version of the CC and CEM to be used in each evaluation shall 

be established in consultation with NIAP and the sponsor. 

5.4.2 For the purposes of achieving product validation through the Common Criteria Scheme, 

laboratories may be required to comply with both international interpretations and NIAP-specified 

guidance. The CCEVS may issue guidance or interpretations to supplement the evaluation assurance 

criteria or methodology provided in the Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology; the 

laboratory shall comply with the guidance or interpretations within the timeframe specified by the 

CCEVS. 

5.4.3 The Common Criteria, Common Evaluation Methodology, NIAP guidance and interpretations, 

and the laboratory’s procedures for conducting security evaluations shall be maintained up-to-date and be 

readily available to the staff. 

5.4.4 The laboratory shall have documented procedures for conducting security evaluations using the 

Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology, and for complying with guidance or 

interpretations. The laboratory shall ensure that these procedures are followed. 

5.4.5 Security evaluations may be conducted at the customer site, the laboratory or another location 

that is mutually agreed to by the CCTL, the sponsor, and CCEVS. When evaluation activities are 

conducted outside the laboratory, the laboratory shall have additional procedures to ensure the integrity of 

all tests and recorded results. These procedures shall also ensure that the same requirements that apply to 

the laboratory and its facility are maintained at the non-laboratory site. 

5.4.6 When exceptions to the evaluation methodology are deemed necessary for technical reasons, 

NIAP shall be consulted to ensure that the new methodology continues to meet all requirements and 

policies, the customer shall be informed, and details of these exceptions shall be described in the 

evaluation report. 

5.5 Equipment 

5.5.1 The laboratory shall maintain on-site systems adequate to support IT security evaluations in 

keeping with the tests for which it is seeking accreditation. The laboratory shall have an electronic report 

generation capability. 

5.5.2 The laboratory shall document and maintain records on all test equipment or test suites used 

during Common Criteria Testing. The laboratory is responsible for configuration and operation of all 

equipment within its control. 

5.5.3 Computer systems and other platforms used during the conduct of testing shall be under 

configuration control. The laboratory shall have procedures to ensure that any equipment (hardware and 

software) used for testing is in a known state prior to use for testing. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 16 

5.6 Measurement traceability 

5.6.1 Measurement traceability is required when applicable. 

5.6.2 The equipment used for conducting security evaluations shall be maintained in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s recommendations, or in accordance with internally documented laboratory procedures, 

as applicable. Test equipment refers to software and hardware products or other assessment mechanisms 

used by the laboratory to support the evaluation of the security of an IT product. 

5.6.3 Laboratories shall calibrate their test equipment. In Common Criteria Testing, calibration means 

verification of correctness and suitability. Any test tools used to conduct security evaluations that are not 

part of the unit under evaluation shall be studied in isolation to make sure they correctly represent and 

assess the test assertions they make. They should also be examined to ensure they do not interfere with 

the conduct of the test and do not modify or impact the integrity of the product under test in any way. 

Laboratories shall have procedures that ensure appropriate configuration of all test equipment. 

Laboratories shall maintain records of the configuration of test equipment and all analysis to ensure the 

suitability of test equipment to perform the desired testing. 

5.6.4 For Common Criteria Testing, “traceability” is interpreted to mean that security evaluation 

activities are traceable to the underlying Common Criteria requirements and work units in the Common 

Evaluation Methodology. This means that test tools and evaluation methodology demonstrate that the 

tests they conduct and the test assertions they make are traceable to specific criteria and methodology. 

This is necessary to ensure that test results constitute credible evidence of compliance with the CC and 

CEM. 

5.7 Sampling 

The laboratory shall use documented procedures for sampling. Whenever sampling is used during an 

evaluation, the laboratory shall document its sampling strategy, the decision-making process, and the 

nature of the sample. Sampling shall be part of the evaluation record. 

5.8 Handling of test and calibration items 

5.8.1 The laboratory shall protect products under evaluation and calibrated tools from modification, 

unauthorized access, and use. The laboratory shall maintain separation between and control over the 

items from different evaluations, to include the product under evaluation, its platform, peripherals, and 

documentation. 

5.8.2 When the product under evaluation includes software components, the laboratory shall ensure 

that configuration management mechanisms are in place to prevent inadvertent modifications to the 

software components during the evaluation process. 

5.8.3 The laboratory shall have procedures to ensure proper retention, disposal or return of software 

and hardware after the completion of the evaluation. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 17 

5.9 Assuring the quality of test and calibration results 

The laboratory shall have procedures for conducting final review of evaluation results, the ETR, and the 

laboratory records of the evaluation prior to their submission to the customer and/or CCEVS. 

5.10 Reporting the results 

5.10.1 The laboratory shall issue evaluation reports of its work that accurately, clearly, and 

unambiguously present the evaluator analysis, test conditions, test setup, test and evaluation results, and 

all other required information. Evaluation reports shall provide all necessary information to permit the 

same or another laboratory to reproduce the evaluation and obtain comparable results. 

5.10.2 There may be two types of evaluation reports: 

a) reports that are to be submitted to the CCEVS, and 

b) reports that are produced under contract and intended for use by the customer. 

5.10.3 Evaluation reports created for submission to the CCEVS shall meet the requirements of the 

Common Criteria Scheme. The evaluation report shall contain sufficient information for the exact test 

conditions and results to be reproduced at a later time if a re-examination or retest is necessary. 

Evaluation reports shall be submitted in the form and by the method specified by CCEVS. 

5.10.4 Reports intended for use only by the customer shall meet customer-laboratory contract 

obligations and be complete, but need not necessarily meet all CCEVS requirements. 

5.10.5 In addition to printed reports, laboratories shall submit reports to the CCEVS in electronic form 

using media such as CDROM. The electronic version shall have the same content as the hardcopy 

version and use an application format (e.g., Adobe PDF or Microsoft Word) that is acceptable to the 

CCEVS. 

5.10.6 Evaluation reports that are delivered to CCEVS in electronic form via electronic mail shall be 

digitally signed or have a message authentication code applied to ensure integrity of the report and the 

identity of the laboratory that produced the report. The laboratory shall provide a secure means of 

conveying the necessary information to CCEVS for the verification of the signature or the message 

authentication code. Confidentiality mechanisms shall be employed to ensure that the evaluation report 

cannot be disclosed to anyone other than the intended recipient(s). 

5.10.7 Changes to evaluation reports produced for the CCEVS shall be made in accordance with CCEVS 

requirements. 

6 Additional requirements 

There are no additional requirements beyond NIST Handbook 150 and its associated normative annexes, 

and any other normative references previously cited in this handbook. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 18 

Annex A 

(normative) 

Initial accreditation 

Initial accreditation is the process by which a candidate laboratory (laboratory) attains accreditation. 

Accreditation requirements are set by both NIAP CCEVS (Annex C of Scheme Publication 1) and 

NVLAP (NIST Handbook 150, NIST Handbook 150-20, and their associated checklists). Approved 

Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs) are IT security testing laboratories that are accredited by 

NVLAP and meet CCEVS-specific requirements to conduct IT security evaluations for conformance to 

the Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation. The initial accreditation matrix 

below provides a chronology of the initial accreditation process. 

Initial Accreditation Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

1 The laboratory reviews 

NIAP requirements and 

verifies that it meets those 

requirements. 

NIAP Information

http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme/ 

(410) 854-4458 

(410) 854-6615 (fax) 

ccevs-staff@nist.gov 

2 Once the laboratory believes 

it has satisfied all NIAP 

requirements, it sends letter 

indicating its intent to 

pursue accreditation to 

NIAP. 

NIAP begins planning resources to 

be used in the validation process. 

NIAP will send an informal note to 

NVLAP indicating that the 

laboratory has expressed its intent to 

pursue accreditation. 

3 The laboratory reviews 

NVLAP requirements 

including NIST Handbooks 

150, 150-20, their associated 

checklists and all NIAP 

Common Criteria Lab 

Bulletins. 

NVLAP Information 

http://www.nist.gov/nvlap 

(301) 975-4016 

(301) 926-2884 (fax) 

nvlap@nist.gov 

4 The laboratory verifies that 

it meets all NVLAP 

requirements for 

accreditation by creating a 

mapping between all 

NVLAP requirements and 

the laboratory’s quality 

system. 

 

5 The laboratory completes an 

application for NVLAP 

accreditation. The 

application includes 

payment of applicable fees 

identified in the NVLAP fee 

schedule. 

 The NVLAP application and fee 

schedule are available from 

NVLAP’s web site: 

http://www.nist.gov/nvlap. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 19 

Initial Accreditation Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

6 The laboratory sends quality 

system documents, 

application, and payment of 

all applicable fees to 

NVLAP. 

 NVLAP processes the application 

and assigns an assessor to review 

the quality system documentation 

submitted. The assessor, through 

NVLAP, will communicate his/her 

findings to the laboratory. 

If quality system documentation 

does not meet all requirements, 

those findings may include 

nonconformities, concerns and 

comments. 

7 The laboratory must resolve 

all nonconformities and 

address all concerns. 

 If the resolution of the assessor’s 

findings requires additional 

oversight or document review by 

the assessor, then NVLAP may 

charge additional fees to the 

laboratory and the previous step 

may be repeated. 

8 Once NVLAP determines that the 

quality system documentation 

meets the NVLAP requirements, 

the initial on-site visit to the 

laboratory is scheduled. 

9 The NVLAP assessor 

conducts a one to one-andone-half day initial on-site 

assessment visit. 

 The NVLAP assessor conducts the 

initial on-site assessment. The 

assessment will include a review of 

quality system, staff, environment, 

equipment, knowledge of CC and 

CEM, and readiness to conduct 

initial evaluation(s). 

At the conclusion of the visit, the 

assessor will provide the laboratory 

with a copy of the report. If the 

laboratory does not meet all 

requirements, those findings may 

include nonconformities, concerns 

and comments. 

10 The laboratory must resolve 

all nonconformities and 

address all concerns. 

 If the resolution of the assessor’s 

findings requires an additional visit 

or significant additional oversight 

by the NVLAP assessor, then 

additional fees may be charged to 

the laboratory and the previous 

step may be repeated. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 20 

Initial Accreditation Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

11 Once NVLAP determines that the 

laboratory has satisfactorily 

resolved all nonconformities and 

concerns related to the initial onsite, NVLAP will send a 

letter/message to NIAP and the 

laboratory indicating that the 

laboratory is ready for proficiency 

testing (proficiency testing is 

performed through an initial 

evaluation monitored by NIAP). 

12 Upon receiving notification, 

the next action for the 

laboratory is to find a 

vendor/sponsor and reach 

agreement to submit their 

product for NIAP 

evaluation. Since the initial 

evaluation will determine 

the EAL at which the 

laboratory will be 

accredited, the laboratory 

should seek to find work 

that would lead to the 

desired level of 

accreditation. The CCTL 

must discuss with its 

prospective vendor/sponsor 

and with CCEVS 

management prior to 

contract signing to ensure 

that the product (TOE) is 

acceptable and both the 

CCTL and the 

vendor/sponsor understand 

the conditions of the NIAP 

initial evaluation. 

Upon receiving notification that the 

laboratory is ready to proceed with 

proficiency testing, NIAP will work 

with the laboratory to identify an 

appropriate evaluation. Because 

TOEs can fill the entire spectrum 

from simple to complex, NIAP must 

ensure that the TOE, and hence the 

evaluation work involved in 

evaluating that TOE, will provide 

the evidence needed for NIAP to 

determine the lab’s proficiency. 

In order to ensure the independence 

of the evaluation, CCEVS 

management will verify that the 

laboratory and the sponsor 

understand that neither the 

laboratory nor other divisions within 

its parent corporation shall provide 

consulting services (e.g., develop 

evaluation evidence) for the 

products selected for the initial 

evaluations. 

CCEVS management will also 

inform the sponsor of the inherent 

risks related to the initial evaluation 

and suggest specific risk-mitigating 

actions of the sponsor to avoid legal 

and/or financial hardship. One riskmitigating factor will be to ensure 

that the evaluation results are 

available to the vendor/sponsor to 

allow the results of an evaluation to 

be moved to an accredited 

laboratory should the laboratory 

experience issues that would cause 

the CCTL to not be accredited. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 21 

Initial Accreditation Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

13 Once the vendor/sponsor, 

laboratory, and CCEVS are 

in agreement, the laboratory 

submits an evaluation work 

package for the initial 

evaluation to NIAP CCEVS. 

Upon receipt of the evaluation work 

package, CCEVS management will 

then assign a validator and a 

Technical Oversight Panel (TOP). 

The TOP will include at least one 

senior validator and one validator 

who is also a qualified NVLAP 

assessor (but not the assessor 

assigned to the laboratory). The 

TOP, along with the validator, will 

provide oversight during the 

laboratory’s initial evaluation. After 

reviewing the evaluation work 

package, the assigned senior 

validator will schedule the kickoff 

meeting. 

14 The laboratory will conduct 

the initial evaluation under 

the oversight of a TOP. 

The TOP procedures during 

initial accreditation are 

documented in the TOP 

document (CCEVS-TOP0001). This document 

identifies the procedures and 

scope of TOP activities. 

The TOP procedures during initial 

accreditation are documented in the 

TOP document (CCEVS-TOP0001). 

As is noted in the TOP document, 

one additional validation team 

activity is to verify the effectiveness 

of the laboratory's management 

system. This activity occurs 

periodically over the course of the 

evaluation and is reported on the 

NIAP CCEVS quality system 

checklist. 

NVLAP will monitor the progress 

of the initial evaluation/proficiency 

test and may observe TOP 

meetings. 

NVLAP will review 

nonconformities, comments, and 

concerns from NIAP validation 

team. 

As the initial evaluation draws to a 

conclusion, NVLAP will assign or 

augment the assessor team in 

preparation for the full on-site 

assessment. 

15 At the conclusion of the initial 

evaluation, NIAP CCEVS will 

notify NVLAP of the outcome and 

forward a copy of the NIAP CCEVS 

quality system checklist to NVLAP. 

NIAP will provide the laboratory 

notification that the proficiency test 

is complete. 

NVLAP reviews the report of the 

conduct of the initial evaluation for 

the purpose of fulfilling the 

NVLAP proficiency testing 

requirements and contacts the 

laboratory to schedule the full onsite assessment. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 22 

Initial Accreditation Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

16 In preparation for the full 

on-site assessment, the 

laboratory conducts an 

internal audit and 

management review. The 

audit/management reviews 

must include the quality 

system, staff, procedures, 

and records generated 

during initial evaluation 

(NVLAP PT) and all 

requirements in NIST 

Handbooks 150 and 150-20. 

Using the results of the audit 

and management reviews, 

the laboratory implements 

improvements identified 

during PT and internal audit. 

The laboratory forwards the 

internal audit report and 

management review report 

to NVLAP for assessor 

review. 

 NVLAP invoices the laboratory for 

the full on-site assessment 

(Admin/Tech support fee and Onsite Assessment fee). 

NVLAP typically assigns two 

assessors for the full on-site 

assessment. The assessors review 

changes to quality system, internal 

audit and management review 

reports and the results of 

proficiency testing activities from 

NIAP. 

Typically the assessor who 

conducted the initial review of the 

quality system documentation will 

be one of the two assigned 

assessors. 

17 The laboratory pays the full 

on-site visit fee and 

continues to improve its 

management system, 

training, competence, etc. 

 NVLAP schedules the full on-site 

visit to the laboratory. This is 

typically two assessors for 

approximately 2 1/2 days. 

18 The NVLAP assessors 

spend 2 1/2 days at the 

laboratory conducting the 

full on-site. 

 The NVLAP assessors conduct the 

full on-site assessment. The 

assessment will include all 

requirements of NIST Handbook 

150, 150-20, all Common Criteria 

technical and competence 

requirements, including the results 

of the initial evaluation. 

At the conclusion of the visit, the 

assessor will provide the laboratory 

with a copy of the on-site report. If 

the laboratory does not meet all 

requirements, those findings may 

include nonconformities, concerns 

and comments. 

19 The laboratory must resolve 

all nonconformities and 

address all concerns. 

 If the resolution of the assessor’s 

findings requires an additional visit 

or significant additional oversight 

by the NVLAP assessor, then 

additional fees may be charged to 

the laboratory and the previous 

step may be repeated. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 23 

Initial Accreditation Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

20 Once all NVLAP and appropriate 

NIAP requirements have been met, 

NVLAP grants initial accreditation 

for Scope based on Initial 

Evaluation/proficiency test. 

NVLAP notifies NIAP CCEVS 

and the laboratory that the 

laboratory has been accredited. 

21 NIAP CCEVS issue a certification 

for the product evaluated during the 

Initial Evaluation. 

22 The accredited laboratory 

must continue to maintain 

its quality system, which 

includes notifications to 

both NVLAP and NIAP of 

changes in key staffing 

positions, ownership, and/or 

facilities. 

 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 24 

Annex B 

(normative) 

Renewal of accreditation 

Accredited laboratories must renew their accreditation annually. However, the activities and fees 

associated with renewal will vary depending upon the year in which accreditation is being renewed. In the 

first renewal year and every two years thereafter, an on-site assessment of the laboratory is conducted to 

determine compliance with the NVLAP criteria. Beginning six months prior to the third renewal year and 

every two years thereafter, NIAP CCEVS requires that the laboratory demonstrate its continued 

proficiency to perform Common Criteria evaluations by performing an evaluation under the oversight of a 

TOP. In those renewal years when there is no on-site assessment and no renewal TOP, the laboratory 

completes and returns the NVLAP renewal forms and pays the NVLAP fees. 

The matrix below documents the renewal process for the third renewal year and every two years 

thereafter. This covers all renewal activities (evaluation via NIAP CCEVS TOP, NVLAP on-site 

assessment, and payment of renewal fees). Renewal of accreditation in other years will be similar, but 

only the activities relevant to that renewal year will occur.

Renewal Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

1 Six months prior to it renewal 

date, the CCTL provides NIAP 

CCEVS with a list of its 

expected evaluations. 

NIAP CCEVS will work with the 

CCTL to select an appropriate 

evaluation for the renewal TOP. 

Because TOEs can fill the entire 

spectrum from simple to 

complex, NIAP must ensure that 

the TOE, and hence the 

evaluation work involved in 

evaluating that TOE, will provide 

the evidence needed for NIAP to 

verify the laboratory's 

proficiency. 

It is important to note that the 

laboratory must demonstrate 

proficiency at its current highest 

scope of accreditation. Failure to 

do so will result in NIAP CCEVS 

requiring additional oversight on 

any subsequent evaluation at an 

EAL above the level at which the 

laboratory's accreditation was 

renewed. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 25 

Renewal Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

2 By the due date, the laboratory 

submits a renewal package to 

NVLAP, including all 

documentation and fees 

appropriate for the renewal 

year. 

If the renewal year activities 

include an on-site assessment, 

then the renewal package will 

include both the 

Administrative/Technical 

Support fee and On-site Fee. 

Otherwise, the package should 

only include an Administrative 

Technical Support fee. 

 NVLAP processes the renewal 

package but does not renew 

accreditation until all NVLAP and 

NIAP requirements are satisfied. 

3 The CCTL will conduct the 

renewal evaluation under the 

oversight of a TOP. 

The TOP procedures during 

renewal of accreditation are 

documented in the TOP 

document (CCEVS-TOP0001). This document 

identifies the procedures and 

scope of TOP activities. 

The TOP procedures during 

renewal of accreditation are 

documented in the TOP 

document (CCEVS-TOP-0001). 

As is noted in the TOP document, 

one additional validation team 

activity is to verify the 

effectiveness of the laboratory's 

quality system. This activity 

occurs periodically over the 

course of the evaluation and is 

reported on the NIAP CCEVS 

quality system checklist. 

Upon completion of the renewal 

TOP, NIAP will inform both 

NVLAP and the CCTL of the 

results. 

NVLAP will monitor the progress 

of the renewal evaluation/ 

proficiency test and may observe 

TOP meetings. 

NVLAP will review 

nonconformities, comments, and 

concerns from NIAP validation 

team. 

As the renewal evaluation draws to 

a conclusion, NVLAP will assign 

an assessor team in preparation for 

the renewal on-site assessment. 

4 The NVLAP assessors spend 

2 1/2 days at the laboratory 

conducting the renewal on-site 

assessment visit. 

 The NVLAP assessors conduct the 

renewal on-site assessment. The 

assessment will include all 

requirements of NIST Handbook 

150, 150-20, all Common Criteria 

technical and competence 

requirements, including the results 

of the initial CC evaluation 

At the conclusion of the visit, the 

assessor will provide the laboratory 

with a copy of the on-site report. If 

the laboratory does not meet all 

requirements, those findings may 

include nonconformities, concerns 

and comments. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 26 

Renewal Matrix 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

5 The laboratory must resolve all 

nonconformities and address 

all concerns. 

 If the resolution of the assessor’s 

findings requires an additional visit 

or significant additional oversight 

by the NVLAP assessor, then 

additional fees may be charged to 

the laboratory and the previous step 

may be repeated. 

6 Once all NVLAP and appropriate 

NIAP requirements are met, 

NVLAP renews the laboratory's 

accreditation for Scope based upon 

the renewal TOP and proficiency 

test. 

If the renewal period did not 

include a renewal TOP and 

proficiency test, then the 

laboratory's scope of accreditation 

will not change. 

7 The accredited laboratory must 

continue to maintain its quality 

system, which includes 

notifications to both NVLAP 

and NIAP of changes in key 

staffing positions, ownership, 

and/or facilities. 

 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 27 

Annex C 

(normative) 

Increasing the scope of accreditation 

If a laboratory’s scope of accreditation is below the maximum Evaluated Assurance Level (EAL4) for the 

CCEVS program, then it may apply to increase its scope of accreditation at any time. If the laboratory has 

not been accredited to the EAL for which it has applied, then it must follow the procedures documented in 

Annex A for an initial evaluation in order to increase its scope of accreditation. Otherwise, the matrix 

below provides a chronology of the steps a laboratory must follow to increase its scope of accreditation. 

Increasing the Scope of Accreditation 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

1 The laboratory performs an 

internal audit and 

management review of its 

quality system and procedures 

to ensure that they will 

support evaluation activities 

at the higher EAL. 

The laboratory sends a request 

to increase its scope of 

accreditation to NVLAP 

along with the results of its 

internal audit and 

management review. 

 Upon receiving the request for an 

increase in scope NVLAP will 

notify CCEVS that the laboratory 

wishes to increase its scope of 

accreditation and begin review of 

the documentation submitted. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 28 

Increasing the Scope of Accreditation 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

2 The next action for the CCTL 

is to find a vendor/sponsor 

and reach agreement to 

submit their product for NIAP 

evaluation at the higher 

assurance level. The CCTL 

must discuss with its 

prospective vendor/sponsor 

and with CCEVS 

management prior to contract 

signing to ensure that the 

product (TOE) is acceptable 

and both the CCTL and the 

vendor/sponsor understand 

the conditions of the NIAP 

initial evaluation. 

Upon receiving notification that 

the CCTL wishes to increase its 

scope of accreditation, NIAP will 

work with the laboratory to 

identify an appropriate evaluation. 

Because TOEs can fill the entire 

spectrum from simple to complex, 

NIAP must ensure that the TOE, 

and hence the evaluation work 

involved in evaluating that TOE, 

will provide the evidence needed 

for NIAP to determine the 

laboratory's proficiency at the 

intended assurance level. 

In order to ensure the 

independence of the evaluation, 

CCEVS management will verify 

that the laboratory and the 

sponsor understand that neither 

the laboratory nor other divisions 

within its parent corporation shall 

provide consulting services (e.g., 

develop evaluation evidence) for 

the products that are evaluated for 

the increase in NVLAP scope of 

accreditation.. 

CCEVS management will also 

inform the sponsor of the inherent 

risks related to the evaluation and 

suggest specific risk-mitigating 

actions of the sponsor to avoid 

legal and/or financial hardship. 

One risk-mitigating factor will be 

to ensure that the evaluation 

results are available to the 

vendor/sponsor to allow the 

results of an evaluation to be 

moved to a laboratory accredited 

to perform work at the EAL of the 

TOE, should the laboratory 

experience issues that would 

cause it not to be accredited at the 

higher EAL. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 29 

Increasing the Scope of Accreditation 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

3 Once the vendor/sponsor, 

CCTL and CCEVS are in 

agreement, the laboratory will 

submit an evaluation work 

package for the initial CC 

evaluation to NIAP CCEVS. 

Upon receipt of the evaluation 

work package, CCEVS 

management will then assign a 

validator and a Technical 

Oversight Panel (TOP). The TOP 

will include at least one senior 

validator and one validator who is 

also a qualified NVLAP assessor 

(but not the assessor assigned to 

accrediting the laboratory). The 

TOP, along with the validator, 

will provide oversight during the 

CCTL’s evaluation. After 

reviewing the evaluation work 

package, the assigned senior 

validator will schedule the kickoff 

meeting. 

4 The laboratory will conduct 

the evaluation under the 

oversight of a TOP. 

The TOP procedures during 

accreditation are documented 

in the TOP document 

(CCEVS-TOP-0001). This 

document identifies the 

procedures and scope of TOP 

activities. 

The TOP procedures during 

accreditation are documented in 

the TOP document (CCEVSTOP-0001). 

As is noted in the TOP document, 

one additional validation team 

activity is to verify the 

effectiveness of the laboratory's 

quality system. This activity 

occurs periodically over the 

course of the evaluation and is 

reported on the NIAP CCEVS 

quality system checklist. 

NVLAP will monitor the progress of 

the initial CC evaluation/proficiency 

test and may observe TOP meetings. 

NVLAP will review 

nonconformities, comments, and 

concerns from NIAP validation 

team. 

As the evaluation draws to a 

conclusion, NVLAP will assign an 

assessor team to review the results 

of the internal audit and 

management review, and the NIAP 

CCEVS quality system checklist. 

5 At the conclusion of the initial CC 

evaluation, NIAP CCEVS will 

notify NVLAP and the CCTL of 

the outcome and forward a copy 

of the NIAP CCEVS quality 

system checklist to NVLAP. 

NVLAP reviews all documentation 

and, at its option, determines 

whether or not an on-site assessment 

is necessary. 

If NVLAP decides that an on-site 

assessment is required, it will 

contact the laboratory to schedule it. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 30 

Increasing the Scope of Accreditation 

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP 

6 The NVLAP assessors spend 

2 1/2 days at the laboratory 

conducting the on-site 

assessment. 

 The NVLAP assessors conduct the 

on-site assessment. The assessment 

will include all requirements of 

NIST Handbook 150, 150-20, all 

Common Criteria technical and 

competence requirements, including 

the results of the initial evaluation. 

At the conclusion of the visit, the 

assessor will provide the laboratory 

with a copy of the report. If the 

laboratory does not meet all 

requirements, those findings may 

include nonconformities, concerns 

and comments. 

7 The laboratory must resolve 

all nonconformities and 

address all concerns. 

 If the resolution of the assessor’s 

findings requires an additional visit 

or significant additional oversight by 

the NVLAP assessor, then additional 

fees may be charged to the 

laboratory and the previous step may 

be repeated. 

8 Once all NVLAP and appropriate 

NIAP requirements have been met, 

NVLAP will notify NIAP of the 

outcome and increase the 

laboratory's accreditation for Scope 

based upon the TOP/proficiency 

test. 

9 The accredited laboratory 

must continue to maintain its 

quality system, which 

includes notifications to both 

NVLAP and NIAP of changes 

in key staffing positions, 

ownership, and/or facilities. 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 31 

Annex D 

(normative) 

Written procedures 

D.1 Overview 

Each applicant and accredited laboratory shall have written and implemented procedures. 

Implementation is used here to mean that the appropriate management system and technical documents 

have been written, experts and expertise obtained, training conducted, activity conducted, activity audited, 

and a management review conducted. Procedures are an integral part of the laboratory management 

system and shall be included in all aspects of the laboratory operation. A laboratory shall implement all 

of the procedures (listed below or not) that are required to meet the accreditation requirements of NIST 

Handbook 150 and this handbook. Failure to have implemented procedures may lead to suspension of 

NVLAP accreditation. 

D.2 General procedures (required, but not limited to) 

General procedures for the following activities are required and shall be implemented before accreditation 

can be granted: 

a) internal audits and management review, 

b) writing and implementing procedures, 

c) writing and implementing instructions, 

d) staff training and individual development plans, 

e) contract review, 

f) staff members who work at home and at alternate work sites outside the laboratory (e.g., 

telecommuting), and 

g) referencing NVLAP accreditation and use of the NVLAP logo. 

D.3 Program-specific procedures (required, but not limited to) 

The following program-specific procedures shall be implemented before the activity is undertaken, e.g., 

procedure for writing Common Methodology (CEM) work-unit level instructions before an evaluation is 

conducted: 

a) writing a work plan for an evaluation, 

b) selecting the members of an evaluation team, 

c) writing an Evaluation Technical Report (ETR), 
NIST Handbook 150-20:2005 32 

d) writing an Observation Report (OR), 

e) conducting an evaluation at a customer's site (if the laboratory offers such services), 

f) conducting evaluations: for ST, PP, and EAL levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 for specific technologies (e.g., 

firewalls, operating systems, biometric devices), 

g) vulnerability analysis, 

h) conducting independent testing, 

i) requesting and incorporating CC interpretations, 

j) working with NIAP or other validators during an evaluation, 

k) records and record-keeping for evaluations, and 

l) writing Common Methodology (CEM) work-unit-level instructions to describe how the work unit 

will be performed for a given PP or TOE evaluation. 

NOTE Not all work units will require such instructions. Examples of work units requiring specific instructions 

for TOE evaluations include: ADV_FSP.1-4, ADV_FSP.2-4, ADV_FSP.1-5, ADV_FSP.2-5, ADV_LLD.1-7, 

ADV_HLD.2-11, AGD_ADM.1-7, ATE_IND.2-4, and ATE_COV.2-3.