POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 1 of 49

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

FOR A MULTI-LATERAL RECOGNITION ARRANGEMENT

AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

CLASSIFICATION

This document is classified as an IAAC Mandatory Document.

AUTHORIZATION

Issue No: 12

Prepared by: MLA Committee

Date: June 2020

Revision No: 01

Approved by: General Assembly

Issue Date: July 30, 2021

Application Date: Immediate

Document number: IAAC MD 002/21

Inquiries: IAAC Secretary

Telephone: +52 (55) 9148-4300

E-mail: secretariat@iaac.org.mx

AVAILABILITY

Copies of this document in English and Spanish, are available at the IAAC Secretariat

and on the IAAC website. 

COPYRIGHT

IAAC holds the copyright of this document and it may not be copied for resale.

Original: English
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 2 of 49

Table of Contents

Section 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................4

1.1 Purpose..................................................................................................................4

1.2 Scope.....................................................................................................................4

1.3 Confidentiality ........................................................................................................4

1.4 Definitions and Acronyms ......................................................................................4

Section 2: Requirements for a Single Accreditation Body ...............................................7

Section 3: Flowchart for Peer Evaluation Procedures of a Single Accreditation Body.....8

Annex 1 .........................................................................................................................13

Appointment and Composition of the Peer Evaluation Team ........................................14

1 Appointment and duties of Team Leader.............................................................14

2 Composition of Evaluation Team.........................................................................14

Annex 2 .........................................................................................................................17

1. Planning and Managing the Evaluation .....................................................................17

1.1 Preliminary Visit Plan...........................................................................................17

1.2 Full Evaluation Plan..........................................................................................17

2.1 Maximum duration............................................................................................18

2.2 Types of evaluation ..........................................................................................18

2.3 Evaluation of Level 3, 4 and 5 activities............................................................19

 2.3.1 Witnessing.....................................................................................................19

 2.3.2 Additional instructions for Level 4 and 5: ............................................................. 22

2.4 Size of the AB...................................................................................................22

2.5 Evaluation of Sources of Metrological Traceability and Visit to the NMI ...........22

2.6 Application from an AB that is a signatory of the MLA of another recognized 

regional body and/or ILAC and IAF............................................................................24

2.7 Other factors.....................................................................................................24

3 Managing the evaluation......................................................................................25

3.1 Preparation and planning .................................................................................25

3.2 On-site evaluation.............................................................................................26

3.3 Activities after the on-site evaluation ................................................................29

Annex 3 .........................................................................................................................30

Evaluation Reporting on an Accreditation Body.............................................................30

1. Steps in Evaluation Reporting on an Accreditation Body:.................................30
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 3 of 49

2. Typical Structure and Content of a Final Evaluation Report on an Accreditation 

Body 31

3. Content of a final evaluation report for an Accreditation Body that is a signatory 

of the MLA of another recognized regional body and/or ILAC and IAF. .....................32

4. Content of a final evaluation report for an accreditation body extending the MLA 

to level 4 and/or 5. .....................................................................................................33

5. Guidance on classification of findings...............................................................33

Annex 4 .........................................................................................................................35

Decision Making Regarding Evaluations .......................................................................35

1. Decision Making Regarding Evaluations .............................................................35

2. Hierarchy of Decisions.........................................................................................36

Annex 5 .........................................................................................................................40

Monitoring and Re-evaluation of a Single Accreditation Body .......................................40

Annex 6 .........................................................................................................................42

Disclosure of Evaluation Reports...................................................................................42

Annex 7 .........................................................................................................................43

Extension of the Accreditation Body’s MLA scope.........................................................43

Annex 8 Guide for Evaluation teams .............................................................................45

1 Introduction:.........................................................................................................45

2 Preparation for the evaluation..............................................................................45

3 During the evaluation...........................................................................................47

4 After the evaluation..............................................................................................48
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 4 of 49

Section 1. Introduction 

1.1 Purpose 

This document defines the policies and procedures of the Inter American Accreditation 

Cooperation (IAAC) to establish, maintain and extend a Multilateral Recognition Arrangement 

(IAAC MLA) among accreditation bodies that are signatories to the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MoU) of IAAC. 

1.2 Scope 

This document identifies general requirements for evaluation of a single accreditation body. 

Section 3 establishes procedures for the peer evaluation process. The Annexes describe in more 

detail the major steps of the process. 

Note: This document has been based on IAF/ILAC A2.

1.3 Confidentiality 

1.3.1 All oral and written information received relating to preliminary visits, evaluations, reevaluations shall be treated confidentially by all parties and persons concerned. This includes 

information relating to applicants and/or members of the MLA Group. All members and observers 

of the evaluation teams; all members and observers of the MLA Group, the MLA Secretary, other 

persons having access to any report on preliminary visits, evaluations and re-evaluations of other 

applicants and members must have signed a declaration of confidentiality before being given 

access. (See FM 011 Declaration of Confidentiality and Impartiality). 

1.3.1.1 Form FM 011 shall be signed by evaluators before they are accepted as IAAC evaluators. 

1.3.1.2 Form FM 011 shall be signed by representatives of MLA Group members before they are 

given access to the first evaluation report.

Note: Only one Declaration of Confidentiality will be signed by MLA Group representatives. It is 

not necessary to sign form FM 011 for each MLAG meeting. 

1.3.1.3 Observers to the MLA Group meetings shall sign form FM 011 at each meeting, before 

they are given access to evaluations reports.

1.3.2 Unless otherwise agreed the Team Leader (TL) and Team Members (TM) shall destroy all 

documents they have received, when the final decision has been made by the MLA Group. 

1.4 Definitions and Acronyms 

The following definitions apply for the purpose of this document:

1.4.1 Accreditation Body (AB): An organization that operates an accreditation system for one 

or more types of conformity assessment bodies. 

1.4.2 Accreditation program: set of criteria specified in a standard or normative document 

included in IAF and/or ILAC Arrangements used for the accreditation of conformity assessment 

bodies.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 5 of 49

1.4.3 Arrangement: The Multi-Lateral Arrangement (MLA), as a consequence of the “recognition” 

process, will be accepted as a subset of the ILAC or IAF Arrangements. 

1.4.4 IAAC: Inter-American Accreditation Cooperation. 

1.4.5 ISO/IEC Standard: An ISO/IEC standard, guide or technical report related to accreditation 

and conformity assessment. 

1.4.6 MLA Committee (MLAC): The committee responsible for planning and managing the 

implementation and maintenance of IAAC Multilateral Recognition Arrangement. This committee 

includes the MLA Group, and may also include non-signatory members. 

1.4.7 MLA Group (MLAG): All signatories to the IAAC Arrangement. The MLAG decides on and 

manages membership in the IAAC Arrangement.

1.4.8 MLA Secretary: Secretary for the MLA Committee and MLA Group. 

1.4.9 Peer Evaluation: A structured process of evaluation of an Accreditation Body by 

representatives of other accreditation bodies. 

Note 1: ISO/IEC 17040 defines peer assessment as an evaluation of a body, against specified 

requirements, by representatives of other bodies in, or candidates for, an agreement group.

1.4.10 Proficiency Testing Activity: All those activities of comparisons of tests, calibrations and 

inspections between laboratories/inspection bodies used by Accreditation Bodies to assess 

performance including proficiency tests (refer to ISO/IEC 17043 “Conformity assessment --

General requirements for proficiency testing”) interlaboratory comparisons and measurement 

audits conducted by IAAC and/or other Regional or International Groups, Accreditation Bodies, 

commercial organizations, or other providers (see ILAC P9). 

1.4.11 Signatory: A Member of IAAC who has signed the IAAC multi-lateral recognition 

Arrangement for one or more scopes. 

1.4.12 Standard: a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, 

that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or 

their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. 

1.4.13 (Peer-evaluation) Team Leader (TL): A lead evaluator responsible for leading a peer 

evaluation team.

1.4.14 (Peer-evaluation) Team Member (TM): An evaluator or trainee evaluator serving on a 

peer evaluation team. 

1.4.15 Witnessing: 

Observation of an AB carrying out assessment at the premises of the conformity assessment 

body (CAB) and evaluation of the AB’s management system and records by an evaluation 

team. (It may also include observing the AB's staff preparing for an assessment and dealing 

with assessment reports.) 

Note: Witnessing can be accomplished with on-site evaluation, remote evaluation, or a 

combination of both, as appropriate. 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 6 of 49

1.4.16 Remote Evaluation: Peer Evaluation of an AB, including associated witnessing activities, 

using electronic means.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 7 of 49

Section 2: Requirements for a Single Accreditation Body 

2.1 An Accreditation body shall comply with the provisions of ISO/IEC 17011.

2.2 Every applicant or signatory to the IAAC MLA shall operate according to applicable IAF and 

ILAC mandatory documents, as specified in the IAF/ILAC A series documents, and the

supplementary requirements of IAF/ILAC A2, IAF Mandatory Documents, and ILAC Policy 

documents, as specified in the ILAC P series, as well as any mandatory documents issued by 

sector specific schemes that have been endorsed by IAAC, IAF or ILAC. Every applicant or 

signatory of the IAAC MLA shall comply with any decision made by IAAC, IAF or ILAC regarding 

the implementation date of these mandatory documents.

2.3 Every applicant or signatory to the IAAC MLA shall contribute its fair share of personnel 

resources for carrying out peer evaluations at the regional and/or international level. 

Every MLA signatory shall, within each MLA recognition cycle, contribute to IAAC at least the 

same number of peer evaluator days as IAAC has provided to carry out their peer evaluations. 

Every MLA signatory shall provide a peer evaluation Team Leader (AB staff or contracted) within 

its recognition cycle. If the AB does not have a qualified and available Team Leader then it shall 

either nominate an individual to be trained by IAAC to become a Team Leader or contract a 

qualified Team Leader. 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 8 of 49

Section 3: Flowchart for Peer Evaluation Procedures of a Single Accreditation 

Body

Conditions for application:

1. Provision of documents required in form FM 

001.

2. The AB agrees to pay for the hotel costs, meals 

and all travel costs of the evaluation team. Air travel 

shall be economy class unless otherwise agreed by 

the body being evaluated.

Form FM001

Application in writing (with scope) to 

IAAC MLA Secretary 

IAAC MLA Secretary

acknowledges receipt of

application to AB,

and informs on 

the procedure and on

all documentation

to be submitted.

AB forwards application form to

IAAC MLA Secretary with all

documentation required

I. Application for Arrangement Membership

IAAC 

MLA Secretary 

checks if AB is 

Full Member 

Further negotiation No

with the applicant

Yes

The AB shall demonstrate the implementation of the 

ILAC and/or IAF requirements, and IAAC 

requirements, refer to the IAAC website,
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 9 of 49

Form 

FM 002

MLA Secretary checks the 

application and documents

Recommendation by the MLA Secretary 

to the MLA Group for acceptance of 

application 

Application and 

documents are 

complete?

No

Yes

Request to the

AB for further

documents

MLA Group 

accepted

the application?

No

MLA Secretary

informs the

applicant and

arranges further

action

Within 90 days from the acceptance of 

the application, a TL and a Team are

appointed by IAAC MLAC Chairperson 

in cooperation with IAF, ILAC and other 

Regional Cooperations, if necessary.

Annex 1

MLA Secretary/MLAC Chairperson 

informs AB on

evaluation team’s appointment

(Form FM 019)

Applicant 

objects?

No

MLAC Secretary / Yes

Chairperson

arrange further

actions

The AB may object, based on conflict of interest and 

impartiality, the appointment of any member of the team.

Yes Note: Members of the team may be 

appointed on separate occasions.

The MLAC Chairperson/ MLA Secretary shall inform the 

TL and TM of their appointment and mandate, using form 

FM 019, including any evaluators appointed by IAF, ILAC 

or other regional cooperations. 

If the evaluation is done in cooperation with IAF/ILAC or 

other Regional Cooperation, the team shall take into 

account the relevant requirements and procedures of 

IAAC as well as the requirements and procedures of those 

organizations.

Voting on application may be done by email 

ballot. If MLA Group raises comments 

during the ballot that may not be resolved by 

email, the application will be discussed in 

the next meeting of the MLA Group.

The MLA Secretary shall check the 

application and documents within 10 days 

after receiving the complete set of 

documents.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 10 of 49

Document review by the team

(Form FM 003) 

Preliminary visit

recommended by

MLA Group, in 

agreement with

applicant?

AB supplies documents

In consultation with the TM and

the applicant, the TL decides on

a preferable date for the

preliminary visit

Based on documentation received

the TL may make proposal to the MLA 

Group for a preliminary visit

The applicant can also ask for a preliminary visit.

II. Preliminary visit

1

No

Yes

TL requests the AB to supply

(additionally) up-to-date

documentation to the Team

AB accepts date

Only after any identified NCs in the document 

review are corrected a preliminary visit is 

needed or recommended

The MLA Secretary shall make available to the team the 

application and the documentation received together with 

information on laboratories that have participated in 

proficiency testing programs of IAAC and other recognized 

regions’ programs, if applicable.

The Document Review may start as soon as the TL has been 

accepted by the applicant. The document review (see form FM 

003) should finish and be communicated to the AB 120 days 

after the appointment of the team, provided all documents 

required have been received in the agreed language (see form 

FM 001).

The official languages for IAAC evaluations are English and 

Spanish. The TL and the evaluated AB shall agree on the 

languages(s) to be used in the evaluation. If there is a need for 

interpreters to be used during the on-site evaluation, the 

relevant costs are borne by the AB being evaluated.

A provisional date for the preliminary visit 

agreed subject to supply of the required 

documentation at least one month in advance of 

the visit or as agreed with the TL.

The AB shall send the team detailed scopes of 

accreditation or draft scopes of accreditation of 

all CABs to be visited during the preliminary 

visit at least one month before the preliminary 

visit.

Annex 2
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 11 of 49

No

The AB will be given the opportunity to 

comment on any factual errors in the report. If 

a preliminary visit has taken place, the full 

evaluation visit will not be carried out before 

the AB has taken all the actions agreed at the 

preliminary visit.

III. Full evaluation

TL requests the AB to supply

the required up to date 

documentation

to the Team 

(See form FM 001, item 20)

If a preliminary visit was conducted, the same TL 

normally continues with the full evaluation.

1

After the preliminary visit, the TL 

submits, in consultation with the TM, 

a short written report.

AB responds to report and

takes corrective actions

TL submits recommendation

to the MLA Secretary /MLAC 

Chairperson

The MLA Group decides whether a

full evaluation can take place

Proceed with 

full evaluation?

AB is informed

with reasoning 

and

steps to follow

Preliminary visit

Yes
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 12 of 49

AB supplies

updated complete 

documentation

TL prepares a detailed plan for 

the visit in consultation with 

TMs, the AB and the MLAC 

Chairperson 

(See form FM 004)

On-site and/or Remote evaluation -

Information collection including 

witnessing 

Discussion of the summary section of 

the report including findings

with the applicant

before the team leaves

TL provides the draft report,

completed in consultation with the 

TMs, to the AB with c/c to the 

MLAC Chair and MLA Secretary

AB responds to TL on all

findings 

Corrective 

actions and 

time schedule

acceptable?

TL arranges further 

discussion with AB

No

All members of the team shall be supplied with updated copies of 

the necessary documentation (see form FM 001 item 20), in the 

agreed language, at least three months in advance of the visit, or 

as agreed with the TL. The AB shall also provide the evaluation 

team detailed information on the assessments planned from 

about 6 weeks of the evaluation or as agreed with the TL so that 

the evaluation team may select the assessments to be witnessed. 

The scopes of accreditation of all CABs to be visited during the 

evaluation shall be provided to the team.

If the documentation is not provided on time, the evaluation may 

be cancelled by the MLAC Chairperson (see also Annex 4 clause 

2.7.1 for suspensions).

Annex 2

The TL shall ensure that the head of the applicant 

body understands and accepts that the evaluation 

shall be conducted in accordance with this document 

and on the basis of the requirements document.

The TL shall give the AB an opportunity to comment

on and discuss the summary section and the team’s findings 

and recommendations and to clear up any 

misunderstandings that may have arisen.

The team shall leave a summary section of the report with 

the AB (see Annex 3) together with the list of finding using 

form IAF-ILAC A3 Annex IV. The summary section and the 

findings shall be provided to the MLA Secretary and MLAC 

Chairperson immediately after the evaluation.

If a follow-up visit is recommended to verify corrective 

actions, this should be stated during the visit, if possible, and

documented in the summary section of report (see Annex 3

clause 2.1).

Decision to authorize a follow up visit may be made by the 

MLAC Chair based on the Summary Report. This decision 

will be recorded in an MLAG resolution. If a follow-up visit 

is to be conducted the evaluation team shall be composed of

one or more members of the evaluation team who carried 

out the full evaluation.

If the team recommends suspension of the AB (see clause 

2.4), the MLAC Chair shall initiate the decision making 

process as per Annex 4.

If possible, the team should leave a complete, draft report

with the AB (see Annex 3, clause 1.2).

If there is a disagreement within the evaluation team or 

between the evaluation team and the accreditation body 

all parties should describe their opinions in the complete 

draft final evaluation report. For any AB appeals of 

findings or adverse decisions by an evaluation team 

during the evaluation process, see PR 005, Procedure for 

Handling Appeals and Complaints.

After the evaluation, the TL and TMs and the evaluated AB 

shall send MLA Secretary and MLAC Chairperson the 

performance logs as required in PR 004.

TL, in consultation with TMs, reacts 

to the AB’s response

Annex 3

Yes
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 13 of 49

TL provides the final report to the MLA 

Secretary and MLAC Chairperson.

MLA Secretary provides the final report 

to the MLA Group

Annex 3

Annex 4

The MLA Group reviews the information 

provided, including input from the evaluation 

team and the AB. MLA Group makes a 

decision.

MLA Secretary informs AB in 

writing of the decision

Decisions may be accompanied by 

conditions.

Annex 5

The AB has the right to appeal the decision. 

AB appeals?

Yes

No

Follow procedure 

IAAC PR005

IV. Re-evaluation

About 12-18 months before the 

next reevaluation is due the reevaluation will be planned.

The MLAC Chairperson arranges the

re-evaluation, based on the

decision

1

See deadlines for the completing the Final report 

in Annex 3, clause 1.6.

After the final decision, the MLA Secretary shall inform 

the evaluation team of the decision and remind them of 

the need to destroy all of the AB’s evaluation 

documents, unless otherwise agreed. (see clause 1.3.2).

The team leader shall also provide the MLA 

Secretary a separate document (FM 022) containing 

the list of assessment witnessed, including 

identification of the CAB and names of assessors and 

experts.

See deadlines for the AB responding to findings and for 

the TL to react in Annex 3, clauses 1.3 and 1.4.

If the AB does not meet these deadlines, the TL shall 

report to the MLAC Chair for a decision.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 14 of 49

Annex 1

Appointment and Composition of the Peer Evaluation Team

1 Appointment and duties of Team Leader 

1.1 Team leaders shall be chosen from the list of qualified lead evaluators of the IAAC Peer 

Evaluators List available in the member’s area on the IAAC Website.

Note: See procedure PR 004 Procedure for selection, training, qualification and monitoring the 

performance of IAAC peer evaluators.

1.2 In appointing team leaders for a specific evaluation, the MLAC Chair should not appoint 

the same team leader for two successive evaluations of the same accreditation body. The team 

leader appointed for an evaluation should not be from the same AB as the team leader from the 

previous evaluation.

1.3 The team leader shall have ultimate responsibilities for all phases of evaluation and is 

delegated authority by the MLA Group to make final decisions regarding the conduct of 

evaluation.

1.4 The team leader shall normally, in addition to the responsibility for managing the 

evaluation and preparing the evaluation report, mentor any trainee evaluator assigned to the 

evaluation team. Mentoring trainee evaluators includes, allocating him/her such task as he/she 

is capable of performing, supervising and providing a report to the MLA Secretary about the 

performance of the trainee evaluator.

2 Composition of Evaluation Team

2.1 For the full evaluation visit, members of the evaluation team shall be chosen as needed to 

cover the activities and standards of the MLA Scopes, the technical fields, knowledge of flexible 

scopes of accreditation and/or remote assessment techniques (as applicable), size and 

complexity of the accreditation system under evaluation.

Note 1 A team leader should normally be accompanied by at least one other team member for a 

preliminary visit to ensure more than one person is involved in establishing an Applicant Body's 

readiness for a full evaluation visit.

Note 2: See procedure PR 004 Procedure for selection, training, qualification and monitoring the 

performance of IAAC peer evaluators. 

2.2 The evaluation team shall be chosen from the IAAC Peer Evaluators List. Lead evaluators, 

evaluators and trainee evaluators may be appointed as evaluation team members. The evaluation 

team chosen shall consist of representatives from a cross-section of accreditation body members 

of IAAC. The evaluation team shall be chosen to provide a balanced set of skills so as to be able 

to conduct an effective evaluation of the key components of the system under evaluation. 

Note 1: Team members should have working knowledge of the language the team leader and the 

AB have agreed to use. Knowledge of the local language should be taken into account.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 15 of 49

Note 2: Some of the team members may have as their only task to perform witnessing at different 

geographical places or at different times than the rest of the evaluation team.

Note 3: Where an evaluation is conducted jointly by IAAC and ILAC, IAF or other recognized 

regional cooperation, the Chair of the MLAC will work in cooperation with the other organization 

and the team leader to set up a team that meets the needs of IAAC. Apart from that, all other 

steps in this procedure apply.

Note 4: The number of members of the team for each scope of the MLA depend on several factors, 

such as the variety of fields in which the AB accredits, the number of accredited CAB, the 

complexity of the AB’s management system, the time required for witnessing and office 

evaluation, the experience of the team members and their scope of qualification, the need for 

IAAC to involve trainee evaluators so as to increase the number of qualified evaluators. 

2.3 When a person is invited to participate in an evaluation team, he/she or his/her AB shall 

inform the MLAC Chair or MLA Secretary of previous involvement with the AB being evaluated. 

No team member shall be associated with any Accreditation Body that has provided consultancy 

service to the body being evaluated for the last three years. The following activities performed by 

the person in the last two years may be considered a threat to a team member`s impartiality:

• Participation in recent internal audits (last 2 years);

• Provision of training specially tailored for the design and development of the AB’s 

accreditation system;

• Participation as an assessor in joint assessments of CABs.

2.4 A re-evaluation visit should be carried out by a team, in which the majority of the members 

will not have been on the evaluation team that undertook the previous evaluation.

2.5 There shall be at least one lead evaluator or evaluator qualified for each accreditation 

standard, except where there are two standards for the same activity (e.g. testing - ISO/IEC 17025 

and ISO 15189). Where more than one accreditation activity or program is covered by the same 

accreditation standard (e.g. ISO/IEC 17025, for testing and calibration; ISO/IEC 17021-1 for QMS, 

EMS, FSMS, etc.), or more than one standard for the same accreditation activity (e.g. for testing, 

ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO 15189), a trainee evaluator may be appointed to evaluate one of the 

activities or programs with the support of the lead evaluator or evaluator who is qualified for the 

applicable activity or standard.

Note 1: For each accreditation standard that is being evaluated, there should only be one team 

member from each accreditation body member taking part.

Note 2: For laboratory accreditation, one member of the evaluation team should be familiar with 

the use of proficiency testing in accreditation.

2.6. When a trainee evaluator is appointed as a team member, he/she may be assigned 

evaluation tasks by the team leader and shall be mentored and supervised by the team leader 

and/or another evaluator so as to ensure those tasks are appropriately carried out. During the 

evaluation at the AB’s facilities, the trainee evaluator shall always be supervised by a lead 

evaluator or evaluator; during witnessing of assessments the trainee evaluator may work on 

his/her own.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 16 of 49

2.6.1 The MLA Secretary or MLAC Chair shall provide the team leader with information on the 

training and experience of the trainee evaluator and on the task that may be performed by the 

trainee evaluator. 

Note 1: Costs of the participation of a trainee evaluator as a team member in an evaluation are 

to be covered by the AB being evaluated. 

Note 2: If a trainee evaluator is appointed to participate in an evaluation only to take advantage 

of evaluator training opportunities without any responsibility as a team member, the costs of 

participation will be borne by the trainee, the AB where the trainee belongs or by the IAAC.

2.7 If the team leader or a team member is from another recognized regional cooperation, the 

MLAC Chair and/or the MLA Secretary shall provide him with instructions about IAAC procedures 

and requirements for peer evaluations as well as the main differences from the procedures used 

by IAF/ILAC.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 17 of 49

Annex 2

Planning and Managing the Evaluation

1. Preliminary visit plan and Full Evaluation plan

1.1. Preliminary Visit Plan

If it is determined by IAAC or the applicant AB that a preliminary visit to the AB is needed before 

the full evaluation can take place, a preliminary visit plan shall be prepared. Based on the results 

of the document review, the preliminary visit team may consider reviewing the following in the 

context of the preliminary visit:

Issues to be considered:

 Management system policies and procedures (as part of a document review prior to the 

preliminary visit);

 Legal identification of the AB;

 Relationships with the regulators and other specifiers (recognition; possible competition); 

 Job descriptions and backgrounds of top management, organization chart;

 Impartiality and conflict of interest; related bodies 

 Access to technical expertise;

 Application documents; 

 Assessor records and documents;

 Sampling of CAB assessment records, including the decision making process;

 Proficiency testing participation levels (for testing and calibration accreditation); 

 Measurement traceability routes (for testing and calibration accreditation and inspection 

bodies where relevant). In some cases it may be necessary to visit the NMI. 

 Witnessing one or more assessments, if possible.

1.2. Full Evaluation Plan

Introduction

In principle it is the task of the TL to create a timetable (see form FM 004) for an evaluation that 

allows for sufficient time to collect such information that confidence can be obtained in the 

operation of the AB to such an extent that the signatories to the Arrangement can promote 

acceptance of results from CABs accredited by the evaluated AB.

It is recommended that the TL start planning the evaluation as soon as the evaluation team is 

appointed.

Because there exist a large variety of circumstances under which an evaluation will take place, it 

should be the prerogative of the TL to deviate from the examples shown under 3.2. The TL should 

agree with the team members on the duration. Consultation with the AB under evaluation is 

essential. When the proposed timetable largely differs from the examples of 3.2 or when additional 

team capacity is required, the MLAC Chair should also be consulted at an early stage.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 18 of 49

2 Considerations

2.1 Maximum duration

The TL should try to arrange the evaluation to take place, preferably within one full (7 days) week.

If witnessing is not possible during the week of the formal evaluation and if no alternatives are 

possible, the TL should make arrangements to have witnessing performed in the weeks preceding 

the evaluation. This will allow for a well-founded closing meeting in which all fact finding can be 

reviewed and discussed. It is additionally advised to use only experienced team members for 

such parts of the evaluation. 

The TL in conjunction with the MLA Secretary and MLAG Chair will consider if remote peer 

evaluation techniques could be used to make more effective use of the time available for the 

evaluation. The decision to use remote evaluation techniques is left to the discretion of the TL in 

conjunction with the AB and should normally not to be used to fully replace the on-site evaluation.

The MLAG Chair and the MLA Secretary must be informed of what has been agreed for their 

approval. 

The TL may determine, in coordination with the AB and team members, that some interviews, 

review of documents and / or records, etc. could be reviewed remotely prior to the on-site 

evaluation. The use of remote peer evaluation techniques must achieve the same objectives as 

the on-site peer evaluation being replaced and the use of such techniques shall be justified.

The TL should arrange the evaluation to take place within a defined timeframe taking into account 

both on-site and remote evaluation activities, as applicable. The on-site evaluation should not 

exceed one full week (7 days) unless special circumstances or scheduling issues arise. Remote 

evaluation activities should be completed in advance of or during the on-site evaluation to ensure 

assistance can be provided during the on-site evaluation. The evaluation findings must be 

provided to the AB at the closing meeting and remote evaluation activities must be arranged such 

that they do not delay the delivery of the findings to the AB at the closing meeting. 

In some instances, it may be beneficial to arrange witnessing outside the on-site evaluation dates

chosen for the full evaluation. If witnessing (remote or on-site) will take place outside of those

on-site evaluation dates, the TL should make arrangements to have witnessing completed prior 

to the on-site evaluation in order to allow for all fact finding from the evaluation process tobe 

reviewed and discussed with the evaluation team and AB. 

2.2 Types of evaluation

There are different kinds of evaluation: e.g. initial evaluation, pre-evaluation, follow-up evaluation, 

evaluation for scope extension, re-evaluation.

Given the interval (approximately 4 years) between evaluations, the duration of a re-evaluation is 

comparable to that of an initial evaluation. A shorter duration applies for preliminary visits, for 

follow-up evaluations and for scope extensions that are conducted separately from a reevaluation. Specific instructions about evaluations for extensions of the MLA scope are given in 

Annex 7.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 19 of 49

2.3 Evaluation of Level 3, 4 and 5 activities

2.3.1 Witnessing

The evaluation team shall consider how to deal with witnessing for the activities and standards of 

the MLA scopes that are being evaluated. Discussion about number and type of assessments to 

be witnessed should start as soon as the team has received the AB documentation. The AB 

should be informed about the evaluation team plans so that they may provide the team with a 

possible list of assessments to be witnessed and should include both on-site and remote 

assessments (as applicable)..

For planning of the witnessing, the AB shall provide the evaluation team with a list of assessments 

that will take place at least 6 weeks prior to the proposed on-site or remote evaluation date, or as 

agreed with the team leader. This gives the evaluation team the opportunity to carefully select 

and plan the witnessing activities taking into consideration: 

- standards for accreditation,

- number of accredited CAB, 

- size of the fields, 

- new fields and complex fields,

- initial evaluation/ re-evaluation,

- witnessed assessments from the last evaluation, 

- assessment techniques applied by the AB (on-site and/or remote),

- flexible scopes of accreditation and for which accreditation schemes they are used,

- crossfrontier accreditation documents and relative arrangements,

- self-declaration of new sub-scopes.

It is important to have the opportunity to witness assessments covering all accreditation 

requirements, particularly in the initial evaluation. It may be necessary to perform more witnessing 

in initial evaluations than in re-evaluations. 

Normally the evaluation team will witness an initial assessment or a reassessment of a CAB or 

two assessment activities for every level 3 scope. Preferably the evaluation team should witness 

reassessments instead of initial assessments. In case it is not possible to witness a reassessment 

or an initial assessment or two assessment activities, the evaluation team may witness only one 

assessment activity that covers all accreditation requirements; this shall be clearly stated in the 

evaluation plan (FM 004). The key is that the peer evaluation team witness the AB assessment 

team’s performance when assessing the technical activities of the CAB. Table 1 below provides 

additional instructions for each scope.

Note: For definitions of Levels, please refer to IAAC PR 025, as applicable.

Since MoUs are being concluded with certain industry sectors, specific attention may be needed 

to assure the AB’s competence to assess in these fields. The evaluation team shall consider the 

need to witness assessments of CAB accredited for accreditation programs endorsed by IAAC, 

IAF and ILAC. Even if witnessing is not considered necessary, the evaluation team shall review 

records (this may be done remotely) of accreditations granted in those schemes and record this 

information in the evaluation report.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 20 of 49

Table 1: Additional Instructions about witnessing

Scope Specific instructions about witnessing

Calibration

ISO/IEC 17025

Witnessing includes witnessing of the assessment by the AB of the CAB performing calibration.

Depending on the risk, number of accredited laboratories, the variety of the scopes, and IAAC 

MLAG decisions, it may be necessary to perform more witnessing. 

Testing 

ISO/IEC 17025

Witnessing includes witnessing of the assessment by the AB of the CAB performing testing.

Depending on the risk, number of laboratories, the variety of the scopes, and IAAC MLAG 

decisions, it may be necessary to perform more witnessing. 

Testing 

ISO 15189

Witnessing includes witnessing of the assessment by the AB of the CAB performing testing.

Depending on the risk, number of accredited laboratories, the variety of the scopes, and IAAC 

MLAG decisions, it may be necessary to perform more witnessing. 

If the team witness an initial assessment of testing laboratory to ISO/IEC 17025 it may not be 

necessary to witness the assessment of the management system requirements of ISO 15189

which are essentially the same as those in ISO/IEC 17025. In any case witnessing needs to 

cover the assessment of the technical requirements of ISO 15189 as well as those 

management requirements of ISO 15189 which are not addressed in ISO/IEC 17025.

Inspection

ISO/IEC 17020

Includes witnessing of the assessment by the AB of the CAB performing inspection.

Depending on the risk number of accredited inspection bodies, the variety of the scopes, and 

IAAC MLAG decisions. it may be necessary to perform more witnessing. 

Management 

system 

certification

ISO/IEC 17021-1

Witnessing includes witnessing of an office assessment by the AB of the CAB. It may be a 

remote assessment, as agreed by the team leader with the AB. 

The peer evaluation team shall carry out at least one witness of the on-site assessment carried 

out by the accreditation body to the conformity assessment body in regard to its compliance 

with the requirements of ISO / IEC 17021-1, regardless of the chosen sub scope.

The witnessing will be selected considering:

- The risk

- The findings and scopes witnessed in the last peer evaluation.

- The number of accreditations granted for each sub-scope 

- The experience of the AB in the sub-scope 

- New sub-scopes and more complex sub-scopes 

- Decisions by the IAAC MLAG. 

If a particular sub-scope is not witnessed in a reevaluation, the peer evaluation team shall 

review assessment records to confirm the AB's competence in that field.

It is not necessary to witness the AB witnessing the CB perform certification audits. However, 

the peer evaluation team shall review the AB's procedures for witnessing certification audits as 

well as assessment records to confirm appropriate implementation.

Product 

certification

ISO/IEC 17065

Depending on the number of accredited CB and the variety of scopes, it may be necessary to 

perform more witnessing. When the assessment to be witnessed by IAAC includes different 

schemes, the peer evaluation team will confirm with the AB's assessment team the witnessing 

to be performed.

The witnessing will be selected considering:

- The risk

- The findings and scopes witnessed in the last peer evaluation.

- The number of accreditations granted for each scope 

- The experience of the AB in the scope 

- More complex scopes 

- Decisions by the IAAC MLAG. 

It is not necessary to witness the AB witnessing the CB perform certification audits. However,

the evaluation team shall review the AB’s procedures for witnessing certification audits as well 

as assessment records to confirm appropriate implementation.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 21 of 49

Scope Specific instructions about witnessing

Certification of 

persons

ISO/IEC 17024

Depending on the number of accredited CBs, the risk of the scopes, and IAAC MLAG decisions,

it may be necessary to perform more witnessing, to be confirmed by the AB’s assessment team, 

when performing assessments to different schemes. 

Note: The evaluation team shall review in detail the AB`s procedures for assessing the cases 

where a CB subcontracts the examination services, as well as assessment records to confirm 

appropriate implementation.

In case where the CB subcontracts the majority of the examination process, the evaluation 

team may consider it appropriate to witness how the AB assesses the competence of the CB 

for that certification.

Proficiency 

Testing Provider 

(PTP)

ISO/IEC 17043

Witnessing includes witnessing of the assessment by the AB of the CAB, including assessment 

of all key activities. 

Note 1: The evaluation team shall review in detail the AB’s procedures for assessing the cases 

where a PTP uses subcontractors, as well as assessment records so as to confirm appropriate 

implementation. 

The evaluation team should consider the need for witnessing the AB that assesses how the 

proficiency testing provider demonstrates that the subcontractors' experience and technical 

competence are sufficient for their assigned tasks and that they comply with the relevant 

clauses of this International Standard and other appropriate standards.

Depending on the risk, number of accredited PTPs, the variety of the scopes, and IAAC MLAG 

decisions, it may be necessary to perform more witnessing.

Note 2: ISO/IEC 17025 or ISO 15189 can be used to demonstrate the competence of a 

proficiency testing provider's laboratory, or the laboratory subcontracted to perform tests or 

measurements related to the proficiency testing schemes. ISO 17034 can be used to 

demonstrate the competence of producers of reference materials that provide proficiency test 

items.

Reference 

Material Producer 

(RMP)

ISO 17034

Witnessing includes witnessing of the assessment by the AB of the CAB, including assessment 

of all key activities.

The evaluation team shall review in detail the AB's procedures for assessing the cases where 

a RMP uses subcontractors, as well as assessment records so as to confirm appropriate 

implementation. 

Note 1: The evaluation team should consider the need for witnessing the AB that assesses how 

the RMP demonstrates that the subcontractors' experience and technical competence are 

sufficient for their assigned tasks and that they comply with the relevant clauses of this 

International Standard and other appropriate standards.

Depending on the risk, number of accredited and the variety of the scopes, IAAC MLAG 

decisions, it may be necessary to perform more witnessing.

Note 2: ISO/IEC 17025 or ISO 15189 can be used to demonstrate the competence of a RMP's 

laboratory, or the laboratory subcontracted to perform tests or measurements related to the 

reference material.

Validation and 

verification of 

ISO/IEC 17029

The evaluation team shall witness a validation where possible, otherwise a verification shall be 

witnessed. Validation requires greater judgment and competency and therefore, represents 

more risk than verification.

Depending on the risk, number of accredited and the variety of the scopes, IAAC MLAG 

decisions, it may be necessary to perform more witnessing.

It is not necessary to witness the AB witnessing the CAB as it performs validation and 

verification audits. However the evaluation team shall review the AB’s procedures for 

witnessing those audits as well as assessment records to confirm appropriate implementation.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 22 of 49

The use of assessment techniques implemented by the AB (on-site and/or remote) shall be 

evaluated and considered when developing the witnessing plans for each accreditation scheme 

for which the AB is seeking recognition. The acceptability of an assessment technique will differ 

based on the accreditation scheme and the accreditation activity for which the assessment 

technique is being used. The TL and evaluation team members must understand and be 

knowledgeable with the assessment techniques implemented by the AB and evaluate the 

appropriateness of their use for each accreditation scheme.

If an AB only uses on site assessment techniques for an accreditation scheme, then the peer 

evaluation must include witnessing of on-site assessment. If an AB uses remote assessment 

and on-site assessment for the same accreditation scheme, the Lead Evaluator, with the 

approval of the MLAG Chair, will determine the type of witnessing to be performed, on-site, 

remote, or a combination of both. This determination will be made based on a risk assessment 

that will include considerations such as the results of previous peer evaluations, complaints 

received by IAAC, the complexity of the accreditation scheme, etc. The remote and/or on-site 

evaluation techniques implemented must ensure that all the relevant requirements of ISO/IEC 

17011 and IAAC are evaluated for compliance during the witnessing of the evaluated 

accreditation scheme(s). On-site witnessing will normally be required for extensions to the 

scope of recognition that include onsite assessment and always be required for initial 

evaluations, when onsite assessment techniques are utilized by the AB for that accreditation 

scheme(s).

2.3.2 Additional instructions for Level 4 and 5:

For all level 4 and 5 activities, it must be stressed that despite spending time on witnessing, it is 

very important to spend ample time to:

• check how an AB selects its assessors and experts for a particular assessment. Thorough 

checking of records from assessments is required including matching the assessor’s 

expertise and competence criteria for the scope of the CAB being assessed. 

• review assessment records and reports and decision-making records other than those of 

the CAB witnessed. 

• review the way an AB expands its accreditation activities for level 4 and 5, according to 

clauses 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 of ISO/IEC 17011, especially the demonstration of competence 

by the AB, in new fields and how relevant requirements as defined by IAF, ILAC or IAAC 

have been met, when applicable. 

2.4 Size of the AB

The influence of the AB’s scope on the duration of the evaluation relates primarily to the number 

of witnessing activities. The AB’s management system may not differ too much when the AB has 

one activity or several activities.

When there is a large difference in the number of accreditations in the various fields, the TL may

decide to place more emphasis on witnessing in the larger field(s).

2.5 Evaluation of Sources of Metrological Traceability and Visit to the NMI

2.5.1 One of the tasks of the evaluation team is to evaluate the AB’s policy on metrological 

traceability and how the AB ensures traceability of results of their accredited laboratories. The AB 

is required to provide the following information (see form FM 001, item 20)
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 23 of 49

• information about the available sources of metrological traceability and the calibration 

and measurement capabilities (CMC) available from these sources (see ILAC P10 and 

ILAC P14);

• a list of recent international comparisons in which the economy’s national metrology 

institute (NMI) or designated institutes have been involved (e.g., BIPM or regional 

metrology organization) or, when applicable, reference to the NMI’s calibration and 

measurement capabilities as published on the BIPM website;

This information needs to be evaluated in connection with the AB policy for traceability to confirm 

its compliance with ILAC P10.

2.5.2 Need for a visit to the NMI. 

2.5.2.1 The visit to the NMI will not be necessary in the following cases:

a) When the NMI is a signatory to the CIPM MRA for all quantities for which traceability is needed 

under the scopes accredited by the AB. 

b) When the NMI is a signatory to the CIPM MRA for some of quantities for which traceability is 

needed under the scopes accredited by the AB, and the AB requires traceability for the remaining 

quantities to acceptable sources of traceability.

c) When the NMI is accredited by a signatory of the IAAC and/or ILAC Arrangement.

2.5.2.2 The visit to the NMI is needed in the following cases:

a) When the NMI is not a signatory of the CIPM MRA.

b) When the NMI is a signatory of the CIPM MRA. but none of its calibration and measurement 

capabilities (CMC) are listed in Appendix C of the CIPM MRA.

c) When the NMI is a signatory to the CIPM MRA for some of quantities for which traceability is 

needed under the scopes accredited by the AB, but is also the source of traceability to quantities 

which are not yet included in Appendix C of the CIPM MRA.

Note 1: The NMI may be in one or several organizations. The evaluation team needs to take that 

into account when planning the evaluation.

Note 2: When deciding whether or not a visit to the NMI is needed, the evaluation team also needs 

to consider the fact that traceability may be achieved through sources other than the NMI, such 

as, NMIs from other economies, laboratories accredited by other signatories to the IAAC and/or 

ILAC Arrangement, in the economy or abroad.

Note 3: In the situation describe in clause 2.5.2.2 c), the visit to the NMI may not be needed in 

case the information provided by the AB about sources of traceability in the country is sufficient 

to confirm compliance with ILAC P10.

2.5.2.3The visit to the NMI, when applicable, aims at:

a) Confirming the information provided by the AB about the NMI activities, in particular its 

participation in regional metrology organizations, the BIPM, and regional and international 

intercomparisons.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 24 of 49

b) Confirming the calibration and measurement capabilities available from the NMI for quantities 

which are not included in Appendix C of the CIPM MRA and collecting information the NMI’s 

traceability chain and on how the NMI has validated those CMC.

Note: The evaluation team is not supposed to carry out an assessment of the NMI.

The information collected in this visit needs to be included in the evaluation report. This 

information needs to be considered by the evaluation team in connection with the AB’s traceability 

policy and information on its implementation in order to confirm compliance with the requirements 

in ILAC P10.

2.5.3 Use of non accredited calibration laboratories

2.5.3.1 If the AB’s policy for metrological traceability allows for the use of non accredited 

calibration laboratories, the evaluation team needs to evaluate how the AB ensures metrological 

traceability. The evaluation team needs to provide Information in the evaluation report about the 

AB’s policy for this case and its implementation, in compliance with ILAC P10.

2.6 Application from an AB that is a signatory of the MLA of another recognized 

regional body and/or ILAC and IAF 

2.6.1 If the AB is applying for recognition for a scope for which it is already a signatory of the 

MLA of a recognized regional body and/or IAF and ILAC, team leader shall also take into account 

all information provided by the AB with the application in planning the peer evaluation, including:

• the previous evaluation report;

• the decision made by the regional body and/or IAF and ILAC;

• the changes that have taken place since the previous evaluation.,

Note: This procedure is also applicable for new MLA scopes that are developed by IAAC. In case 

the new MLA scope is not yet implemented by IAF and/or ILAC in their own MLA, any regional 

cooperation that is recognized by IAF and or ILAC for other scopes of the MLA are considered 

"recognized cooperations" for the new MLA scopes.

2.6.2 If the AB has been evaluated by an IAF and/or ILAC recognized regional body within the 

past two years and if the findings are closed the team leader may adjust the evaluation plan

accordingly. Possible adjustments may include:

a) reduction of the number of assessments to be witnessed;

b) reduction of the amount of time spent reviewing the AB’s management system on site;

c) elimination of the need to visit the NMI

d) limit the evaluation activities to a document review of the current documentation and 

resolution of any findings observed therein.

2.6.2.1 If the team leader in consultation with the AB, recommends adjustment of the plan as 

described in 2.6.2, he/she shall notify the MLAC Chair prior to finalizing the plan. The MLAC Chair 

shall review the recommendation, approve the evaluation plan and shall inform the MLA Group 

of the decision.

2.6.2.2 If the evaluation activities are limited to a document review, the next reevaluation shall be

done 4 years from the previous on site evaluation.

2.7 Other factors
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 25 of 49

2.7.1 Factors that may influence the duration of the evaluation include:

a) Need for translators and their effect of slowing down the evaluation

b) Extensive travel and travel circumstances

c) Cultural differences

2.7.2 This annex cannot provide guidance on all possible cases. It is left to the evaluation team

and their experience to judge these effects and to cater for them in such a way that there is no 

compromise to the principle stated in the introduction to this annex. 

3 Managing the evaluation

3.1 Preparation and planning

The time for the evaluation team needs to spend on preparation largely depends on the quality of 

the documents that the AB forwards. The documents that are required for both initial evaluations 

and reevaluations are specified in form FM 001 item 20. Accurate translation of the documents 

into English or Spanish must be done if requested by the TL and /or TMs and agreed with the AB. 

The self-assessment prepared by the AB using IAF/ILAC A3) and the checklist (see form FM 003)

relating the accreditation standard(s) to the AB’s procedures/documents must be detailed and 

accurate (instructions, forms, guides, etc.) indicating the current revision. These two documents 

will greatly assist the evaluation team in preparation. If the self-assessment document does not 

provide adequate information to the team, the team leader can ask the AB to revise the document 

with the necessary information. The AB shall send all documents listed in form FM 001, item 20 

at least 90 days in advance of a visit to allow for preparation and for requesting additional 

information. 

If documentation is not received on time, the TL shall inform the Chair of the MLAC who may as 

a result cancel the evaluation (see also Annex 5 for cancelation of a reevaluation).

The team members must start reviewing the documents directly after receipt. In essence the team 

leader should be able to prepare a part of the report with background information before the 

evaluation. This part of the preparation is the same for all types of evaluations. The total time 

involved in studying of the documentation may take on average 3 to 5 days for the TL and 2 to 4 

days for the team members.

When planning the evaluation, the TL shall also consider the need to mentor and supervise 

trainee evaluators working as team members. Particular care should be taken to ensure that 

trainee evaluators are supervised by an evaluator or lead evaluator when carrying out evaluation 

tasks in the AB’s office. Trainee evaluators may perform witnessing on their own.

If the applicant has applied for accreditation activities for an industry specific program, then the 

requirements set by that industry group for accreditation bodies shall also be considered on a 

sampling basis.

The TL, in cooperation with the TMs, shall prepare an evaluation plan using form FM 004 that 

contains as a minimum:

- Identification of the AB,

- The purpose and date of the evaluation, including the accreditation programs to be 

evaluated
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 26 of 49

- The names of the TL and TMs and the accreditation programs that they are qualified for

- The requirements to be considered.

- Date and time for the opening meeting and date and estimate time for the final meeting.

- General description of activities and/or requirements to be evaluated by each member of 

the evaluation team each day. 

- If necessary, identification of AB personnel that will be involved with particular evaluation 

activities. 

- Private activities of the evaluation team, such as meetings before the evaluation, at night 

or after the evaluation.

- Identification of the assessments to be witnessed and the evaluators assigned to them

(This identification should include the type of CAB, accreditation program or specific field 

of conformity assessment, number of assessor.)

- Information on the need for a meeting between the IAAC TM and the AB’s assessment 

team after the end of the assessment witnessed.

- Other organizations to be visited (such as the NMI) or Committee meetings to be 

witnessed and the TM that has been assigned those tasks.

- Any travel or any other arrangements that may interfere with the performance of the 

evaluation. 

The evaluation plan FM 004 should be sent to the AB 30 days in advance of the evaluation.

3.2 On-site evaluation 

The evaluation team should be prepared to make long working days during the on-site evaluation.

An on-site evaluation typically consists of:

- Opening meeting, presentation by team leader outlining aims, objectives and procedure 

to be used by evaluation team;

- Evaluation of the AB’s offices and management system, review of files and records

- Discussing the results of the self-assessment report as per IAF/ILAC A3 (This selfassessment is written by the AB using IAF-ILAC A3);

- Evaluation of the records of CAB whose assessment is to be witnessed and of the 

preparation for the assessment; if possible witnessing of the accreditation decision making 

process;

- Splitting the team members in accordance with their experiences for the purpose of 

witness including the on-site preparation of the draft assessment report with a list of 

findings;

- Discussing the results of the witnessing with the AB assessment team and AB staff, 

- Preparing the report on the witnessed assessments using IAF-ILAC A3 Annex IV;

- Preparation of the summary section of the report, and writing and classification of findings; 

and

- Meeting with the AB’s Director to review IAF-ILAC A3, Annex I, for comments prior to the 

closing meeting;

- Closing meeting, presentation and discussing of findings.

During the evenings the team members should meet to discuss their findings and possibly adjust 

the focus of their attention. In case meetings are not possible the evaluation team should arrange 

means of communication with the team leader. The TL will need to add/modify/enhance the 

preliminary report that resulted from the studying of the documentation and discuss such changes 

during the week with the team members.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 27 of 49

The evaluation plan shall allow the evaluation team sufficient time for all team members to review 

the findings before presenting them to the AB so as to make sure that all issues raised by all 

members of the evaluation team have been covered.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 28 of 49

Some timetable examples are:

3.2.1 Full size scope AB

Day Actions Evaluators

Sunday >= 4 hours for preparation with the evaluation team

(key issues to be addressed + evaluation plan)

TL + 4 TM

Monday Office, opening meeting, records, etc. + 

preparation for witnessing assessments

TL + 4 TM

Tuesday Office + witnessing staff + witnessing assessments 

(split team)

TL + 4 TM

Wednesday Office + witnessing staff + vertical audits + 

witnessing assessments (split team)

TL + 4 TM

Thursday Office + witnessing staff + vertical audits (specially 

directed for confirmation of previous findings + 

witnessing assessments (split team)

TL + 4 TM

Friday Same + preparation final report + preclosing 

meeting with AB Director + closing meeting

TL + 4 TM

Saturday Discussing further actions for TMs + departure TL + 4 TM

3.2.2 Single scope AB

Day Actions Evaluators

Day 1 3 hours for preparation with the evaluation team

Office, opening meeting, records, etc.

(key issues to be addressed + evaluation plan)

TL + 2 TM

Day 2 Office + witnessing assessments (split team) TL + 2 TM

Day 3 Office + witnessing staff + preparation final report + 

preclosing meeting with AB Director + closing 

meeting

TL + 2 TM

Day 4 morning Discussing further actions for TMs + departure TL + 2 TM

3.2.3 ABs with 2 scopes of accreditation

Day Actions Evaluators

Day 1 3 hours for preparation with the evaluation team

Office, opening meeting, records, etc.

(key issues to be addressed + evaluation plan)

TL + 2 TM

Day 2 Office, opening meeting + preparation for 

witnessing assessments

TL + 2 TM

Day 3 Office + witnessing staff + witnessing assessments 

(split team)

TL + 2 TM

Day 4 Same + preparation final report + preclosing 

meeting with AB Director + closing meeting

TL + 2 TM

Day 5 morning Discussing further actions for TMs + departure TL + 2 TM
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 29 of 49

3.2.4 ABs with 3 fields of accreditation

Day Actions Evaluators

Sunday >= 4 hours for preparation with the evaluation team

(key issues to be addressed + evaluation plan)

TL + 3 TM

Monday Office, opening meeting, records, etc. + 

preparation for witnessing assessments

TL + 3 TM

Tuesday Office + witnessing staff + witnessing assessments 

(split team)

TL + 3 TM

Wednesday Office + witnessing staff + vertical audits + 

witnessing assessments (split team)

TL + 3 TM

Thursday Office + witnessing staff + vertical audits (specially 

directed for confirmation of previous findings + 

witnessing assessments (split team)

TL + 3 TM

Friday Preparation final report + preclosing meeting with 

AB Director + closing meeting + Discussing further 

actions for TMs + departure

TL + 3 TM

3.3 Activities after the on-site or remote evaluation

Electronic means to communicate with the team members should be sufficient to provide 

feedback and support as the TL prepares the final report for the AB.

The evaluation team needs to spend time on reviewing the AB’s response to the findings and 

preparing the evaluation team’s reaction. The TL shall take the lead in preparing this reaction. 

Finally the TL shall prepare the evaluation team’s recommendation to the IAAC MLA Group. 

Typically these activities may take 2-3 days for the TL. For TMs, the time involved may be limited 

to one day.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 30 of 49

Annex 3

Evaluation Reporting on an Accreditation Body

1. Steps in Evaluation Reporting on an Accreditation Body:

1.1. Preparation of summary section of report

This summary section has to be completed and be confirmed by the applicant at the end of the 

on-site evaluation visit. The content of the summary is described in IAF/ILAC A3. It includes as 

an annex the nonconformities and comments presented in table format using form IAF/ILAC A3, 

Annex I (see section 2.1).

The summary report and the findings shall be provided to the MLAC Secretary and MLAC Chair 

immediately after the evaluation visit.

1.2. Preparation of the Draft Report of the On-site and Remote Evaluation Visit.

(Deadline - within 60 days from the on-site evaluation).

This report is the agreed report of the evaluation team and the Accreditation Body and includes 

all information described in IAF/ILAC A3, except the responses to the findings, the reaction from 

the evaluation team, and the recommendation.

The report shall include any disagreement within the evaluation team or between the evaluation 

team and the accreditation body, with the opinions of all parties.

For any AB appeals of findings or adverse decisions by an evaluation team during the evaluation 

process, see PR 005, Procedure for Handling Appeals and Complaints

1.3. Formal Response of the Accreditation Body to the Findings.

The accreditation body’s response can simply be inserted under each finding in form IAF/ILAC 

A3, Annex I, with attachments of supporting evidence of corrective action as appropriate. (see 

what is expected of the AB’s response and corrective action described in section 3 of this Annex).

For initial evaluations and extensions of scopes:

- Within 3 months from the evaluation the AB shall present an action plan and time schedule 

for implementation of actions for nonconformities and responses to the comments.

- The AB should provide evidence of effective implementation of corrective actions for 

nonconformities within 8 months from the evaluation or as agreed with the TL.

- In case there is a need for a follow up visit to confirm implementation of actions, the AB 

shall present evidence of implementation of actions at least two months before the follow 

up visit, or as agreed with the TL. In this case, if there are any actions pending after the 

follow up visit, the AB should provide evidence of effective implementation of corrective 

actions for nonconformities within 4 months from the follow up visit.

Note: For initial evaluations and extensions of scopes, it is acceptable that the AB may 

need more time to implement corrective actions.

For reevaluations: 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 31 of 49

- Within 1 month from the reevaluation the AB shall present an action plan and time 

schedule for implementation of corrective actions for nonconformities and responses to 

the comments.

- The AB shall present evidence of effective implementation of corrective actions for 

nonconformities within 3 months from the evaluation.

- In case there is a need for a follow up visit to confirm implementation of actions, the AB 

shall present evidence of implementation of actions at least two months before the follow 

up visit, or as agreed with the TL. In this case, if there are any actions pending after the 

follow up visit, the AB shall provide evidence of effective implementation of corrective 

actions for nonconformities within 1 month from the follow up visit.

1.4. Formal Reaction of the evaluation team to this Response. The evaluation team’s reaction 

to each response to every finding is submitted in writing to the Accreditation Body for 

consideration using IAF/ILAC A3, Annex I. (Deadline - within 30 days from step 3.)

1.5. Steps 3 and 4 may be repeated.

Any problems completing steps 3 and 4 shall be reported to the Chair and Secretary of the IAAC 

MLAC.

1.6. Preparation of a Final Report to the MLA Group. 

(Deadline: 30 days from completion of step 4.)

This report consists of the items identified under steps 2, 3 and 4 (i.e., formal team report, formal 

AB response and formal team reaction). In addition, the recommendation of the evaluation team

is stated as a section of the evaluation team’s final report (see section 2.1 in this Annex). Items 

included in steps 3 and 4 shall be combined into IAF/ILAC A3, Annex I, stating the findings, the 

formal AB response including corrective actions, and the evaluation team’s reaction. The report 

shall also include information on the follow up visit, if relevant (see clauses 2.2 and 2.3 in this

Annex). This will ease the MLA Group review process.

At this stage of the evaluation, if the evaluation team’s recommendation includes a follow-up visit 

to verify the corrective actions, this decision shall be made by the MLAC Chair. If a follow-up visit 

is to be conducted, the evaluation team should be composed of one or more members of the 

evaluation team that conducted the full evaluation.

For initial evaluations and extensions of scope, the final report shall be provided to the MLA 

Secretary and MLAC Chair 30 days after all findings have been closed.

For reevaluations, the final report shall be provided to the MLA Secretary and the MLAC Chair

6 months from the date of the reevaluation even if some findings are still open unless the MLA 

Group or the MLAC Chair has authorized a follow up visit, in which case the final report shall be 

provided to the MLA Secretary and the MLAC Chair 60 days after the follow up visit.

2. Typical Structure and Content of a Final Evaluation Report on an 

Accreditation Body

2.1. Full evaluation report

The report shall be prepared using IAF/ILAC A3.

2.2. Follow up visits done before a final decision by the MLA Group.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 32 of 49

The report shall be prepared using IAF/ILAC A3.

The summary section about the follow up visit and the updated IAF/ILAC A3, Annex I, shall be 

provided to the AB at the end of the visit. 

2.3. Follow up visits done after a final decision by the MLA Group.

If the follow up visit aims at checking implementation of corrective actions after IAAC MLA Group 

makes a decision on granting or maintaining recognition, the information on the activities done in 

the follow up visit shall be included in a report issued specifically for that follow up visit as follows:

2.3.1.The cover page shall state the type of evaluation, the name of the Accreditation Body 

that has been evaluated, the dates of the evaluation visit(s), the names of the team leader 

and team members, specifying the organization to which they belong, and a clear indication 

that the report is confidential.

2.3.2.The report shall include a section with a summary of the follow up visit, including the 

reasons for the follow up visit, reference to the decision authorizing the visit, by the MLA 

Group, the evaluators participating in the visit, dates of the visit, a summary of the activities 

performed by the evaluation team, confirmation whether or not all findings have been closed 

and a recommendation to the MLA Group on the next steps of the process.

2.3.3.An annex with the follow up visit plan.

2.3.4.An annex with the report on any assessments witnessed using IAF/ILAC A3, Annex V.

2.3.5.IAF/ILAC A3, Annex I, including only the findings and corrective actions of the previous 

evaluation visit that were checked in the follow up visit, and information about the evidences 

obtained by the evaluation team for each of the findings, confirmation that the finding is closed 

or information on the actions that are still pending.

2.4 The summary section, the table of findings with information about the actions taken shall be 

provided to the AB at the end of the visit. The final report shall be sent to the MLA Secretary 

and MLAC Chair 30 days after the visit.

3. Content of a final evaluation report for an Accreditation Body that is a 

signatory of the MLA of another recognized regional body and/or ILAC and 

IAF.

3.1. When an AB is applying for recognition for a scope for which it is already a signatory of the 

MLA of a regional body and/or IAF and ILAC, the evaluation activities may be limited to a 

document review of the current documentation and resolution of any findings observed 

therein.

3.2. In this case the report shall include:

• A summary section regarding the application, related documents, and the decision to limit 

the evaluation activities to a document review;

• Description of the outcomes of the document review for all the requirements of ISO/IEC 

17011. The team leader can issue the report based on the complete and updated 

IAF/ILAC A3. If there is an IAAC mandatory document related to the scope under 

evaluation, it shall be considered in this section of the report;
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 33 of 49

• Information regarding the changes in the AB since the evaluation date performed by the 

regional body and/or IAF and ILAC;

• Evaluation team recommendation to the MLA Group;

• An annex using IAF/ILAC A3, Annex I, that includes the nonconformities and comments, 

and when applicable, it should include the AB's responses;

• An annex with the full report of the regional body and/or IAF and ILAC; and

• An annex with the decision from the regional body and/or IAF and ILAC.

4. Content of a final evaluation report for an accreditation body extending the 

MLA to level 4 and/or 5.

4.1. for extensions of scope to include new Level 4 and/or Level 5 normative documents the 

evaluation report shall include: 

• A summary section regarding the application, related documents, the decision to limit the 

evaluation activities to a document review according to Annex 7 on this document.

• Description of the outcomes of the document review for clauses, 4.6, 6 and, 7 of ISO/IEC 

17011 and IAAC, IAF and ILAC mandatory documents applicable to the MLA subscope.

Note: Other requirements may be evaluated if the evaluation team finds it necessary.

• Evaluation team recommendation to the MLAG 

• An annex using IAF/ILAC A3, Annex I, with the nonconformities and comments, and when 

applicable, it should include the AB's responses.

5. Guidance on classification of findings

Finding: To be used as a general term

The IAAC MLA structure is defined in procedure PR 025. During an evaluation, findings shall only 

be raised within the scope the IAAC MLA that is being evaluated.

The IAAC MLA for calibration, testing (including clinical/medical testing), inspection, product 

certification, certification of persons, validation and verification of GHG, proficiency testing and 

reference materials production covers all accreditations granted by the AB under the applicable 

standards for those activities, and all conformity assessment services accredited by the AB. 

Therefore, findings can be raised for issues related to all Levels of the IAAC MLA (Levels 1, 2, 3, 

4 and 5).

The IAAC MLA for management systems certification covers all accreditation granted by AB under 

ISO/IEC 17021-1, therefore, findings can be raised to any issues related to Levels 1, 2 and 3 of 

the IAAC MLA (main scope). The IAAC MLA for management system covers only conformity 

assessment services included in the Level 4 and 5 standards specified in PR 025 (sub-scopes), 

therefore, findings can only be raised for issues related to those specific Level 4 and 5 standards.

Nonconformity: Finding where the AB does not meet a requirement of the applicable standard 

(ISO/IEC 17011), its own management system or the Arrangement requirements.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 34 of 49

The evaluated AB is required to respond to nonconformity by taking appropriate corrective action 

and providing the evaluation team with evidence of effective implementation.

A nonconformity is considered closed when the evaluation team has accepted the evidence of 

effective implementation of corrective action provided by the AB.

Comment: Finding about documents or AB’s practices with a potential of improvement; but still 

fulfilling the requirements.

The evaluated AB is required to respond to comments.

A comment is considered closed when the evaluation team has received the response from the 

AB.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 35 of 49

Annex 4

Decision Making Regarding Evaluations

1. Decision Making Regarding Evaluations

1.1 The final evaluation report shall be submitted to the MLA Secretary and MLAC Chair (see 

deadlines in Annex 3, item 1.6).

Note: For reevaluations the report will be submitted to the MLA Group before all findings have 

been closed if the AB if not able to meet the deadline for closing findings (see Annex 3, item 1.6).

1.2 The MLA Secretary distributes the final report to the MLA Group, which shall decide: 

• in the case of an initial evaluation, whether or not the Applicant Body may enter the 

Cooperation’s Arrangement;

• in the case of a re-evaluation, whether or not the Applicant Body will remain a Signatory 

to the Arrangement. Positive decisions can be accompanied by conditions (see 2.0 

Hierarchy of Decisions).

Note 1 The MLA Group may decide to carry out a re-evaluation, partly or totally, prior to the 

normal 4 year period. Normally this would be the case after initial evaluations or fundamental reorganizations.

Note 2 For voting rules see the document AD 021.

1.3 The MLA Group shall review the evaluation report findings to confirm that they are 

correctly classified and that the report contains the necessary information to have full confidence 

that the applicant complies with MLA requirements. The MLA Group may request additional 

information from the evaluation team and the AB, in which case it should duly note it, in order to 

harmonize peer evaluator criteria. 

1.3.1 Decision on initial evaluations will normally be made during the MLAG meetings. In case 

decisions on evaluations or reevaluations are made by email ballot, this process will be carried 

out in 3 steps:

Step 1) Review of the evaluation report by the MLA Group and presentation of comments. 

The MLA Group shall provide written comments to the report within 30 days or as agreed by the 

MLA Group. All signatories are required to send their comments to the MLA Secretary. If a 

signatory does not have any comments, the signatory’s representative shall state that in writing. 

Comments shall clearly identify the section, page of the report and, if relevant, the number of the 

finding. Comments should include issues that need to be clarified by the evaluation team and/or 

the evaluated accreditation body. 

Step 2) Clarification on comments

As soon as the comments for a MLAG member are received, the MLA Secretary will forward them 

to the evaluation team leader and the evaluated accreditation body for their clarification. This step 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 36 of 49

should be completed within 30 days from the end of the comment period or as agreed by the MLA 

Group.

Step 3) Email ballot

After getting clarifications on the comments, the MLA Secretary will submit the final report, the 

comments and the clarifications to the MLAG for a 30 days electronic ballot.

In order to avoid conflict of interests, the person representing the signatory in this email ballot 

shall not have participated in the evaluation.

2. Hierarchy of Decisions

2.1 Decisions made as a result of peer evaluations can take many forms. Implicit in these 

decisions is the possibility of a variety of sanctions. This guidance outlines a hierarchy of 

the major types of decisions from the most positive decision to the least positive decision 

(i.e., when conditions or sanctions of increasing severity are imposed).

2.2 The IAAC MLA Group makes all decisions on MLA signatories. There are primarily two 

situations to address: New MLA Applicant and Maintenance of a MLA Signatory. A third 

situation that is not addressed below is the possibility of adverse decisions or sanctions 

imposed on an MLA signatory which fails to abide by its obligations under the Arrangement 

itself.

2.3 Decisions on New MLA Applicant and Extensions of Scope.

2.3.1 Approval without conditions (re-evaluation to occur in the normal 4 years period from 

the date of the evaluation).

2.3.2 Approval with conditions (e.g., shortened interval for re-evaluation), a follow up visit by 

one or more members of the evaluation team.

2.3.2.1 Where the number of accredited CAB in the scope the applicant is applying for is less 

than four at the time of evaluation, the need for a follow-up evaluation before the normal 

4 year period shall be considered by the MLA Group.

2.3.3 Defer approval pending submittal of required evidence of corrective actions, or of any 

other information as determined by the MLA Group, and/or a follow up visit by one or 

more members of the evaluation team to confirm implementation of corrective actions.

2.3.4 Defer re-approval pending submittal of required evidence of corrective actions, or of any 

other information as determined by the MLA Group, and/or follow up visit by one or 

more members of the evaluation team. In case the AB is not able to meet the deadlines 

for responding to and closing findings, the MLA Group may issue warnings and fix a 

prorogation of the deadline after which a decision will be made.

2.3.5 For decisions on new MLA applicants and extensions of scope that are not specified in 

the situations described above, the MLAG will make a decision considering case by 

case so as to ensure the reliability of the IAAC MLA.

2.3.6 For decisions on MLA signatories that are not specified in the situations described 

above, the MLAG will make a decision considering case by case so as to ensure the 

reliability of the IAAC MLA.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 37 of 49

2.3.7 Disapproval with a new evaluation required.

1

2.4 Acceptance into the IAAC MLA Group

2.4.1 Once the IAAC MLA Group has approved a new signatory of the MLA, it is accepted 

immediately into the MLA. 

2.4.2 The MLA Secretary will inform the IAAC General Assembly of new signatories and their 

scopes of recognition.

2.5 Decisions on MLA Signatory

2.5.1 Approval without conditions (re-evaluation to occur in the normal 4 year period from the 

date of the evaluation).

2.5.2 Approval with conditions (e.g., shortened interval for re-evaluation, a follow up visit by 

one or more members of the evaluation team).

2.5.3 Defer re-approval pending submittal of required evidence of corrective actions and/or 

follow up visit by one or more members of the evaluation team. In case the AB is not 

able to meet the deadlines for responding to and closing findings, the MLA Group may 

issue warnings and fix a prorogation of the deadline after which a decision will be made.

2.5.4 Reduction of recognition for one or more scopes of the IAAC MLA.

2.5.5 Suspension from the MLA (see clause 2.7).

2.5.6 Withdrawal of Signatory status (see clause 2.7)

2.6 Notification of change 

2.6.1 Each Signatory of the IAAC MLA shall report any significant changes in its status and/or 

its operating practices (e.g. as listed below) including the impact of these changes,

without delay to all MLA Group members through the IAAC MLA Secretary. 

- Legal status; 

- Senior accreditation program personnel; 

- Contact person or liaison officer for the Arrangement; 

- Accreditation criteria and procedures, related to the Arrangement; 

- Office address (and postal address, if different), including head office and any offices; 

- Relationship with government; 

- Sector specific accreditation programs/schemes endorsed by IAAC, IAF and ILAC with 

which the AB is involved

1 Disapproval should rarely happen for New Applicant (Accreditation Bodies) since an evaluation report is normally only 

submitted for a decision once all findings have been closed. 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 38 of 49

- Other changes that significantly affect the competence or credibility of the accreditation 

process. 

2.6.2 The MLA Secretary will update the relevant information about the signatory on the IAAC 

website and inform all IAAC members about the changes. The MLA Group shall review 

the changes that affect the MLA and decide on the need for any subsequent actions, 

which may include but are not limited to:

- Request the signatory to provide additional information,

- Perform an extraordinary evaluation,

- Verify the implementation of the changes in the next re-evaluation,

- Update the name of the organization and sign a new Signature Sheet of the IAAC MLA.

2.7 Suspension and withdrawal of MLA Group

2.7.1 It may be that the IAAC MLA Group cannot accept the corrective action taken by an AB 

with regard to significant changes notified by the AB, or to nonconformities which have been 

found, or to substantiated complaints from interested parties. It may also be that the AB does 

not provide the documentation required to perform the evaluation, delays reevaluations or 

follow up visits, or does not appropriately respond to the nonconformities of a peer evaluation 

in the time frame established in this document. The IAAC MLA Group may then take 

appropriate action. This action can be suspension for a maximum period of 12 months or 

withdrawal from the IAAC MLA. 

2.7.2 Notwithstanding any other clause in this document, an accreditation body member shall 

not remain a member of the MLA Group if it is, for any reason, suspended or withdrawn from 

the MoU. The IAAC Secretary shall immediately notify the MLA Group when any member of 

the MLA is suspended or withdrawn from the MoU for any reason, and the MLA Group shall 

immediately suspend or withdraw the membership of the body in the MLA.

2.7.3 Suspension or withdrawal of a signatory shall be decided by the IAAC MLA Group in 

accordance with the same procedures used for acceptance of MLA signatory. IAAC MLA 

Secretary shall inform IAAC members, ILAC, IAF, and all recognized Regional Cooperations

about any suspension or withdrawal decided by IAAC. That information shall be accompanied 

by an appropriate explanation stating the reason for suspension or withdrawal to the 

signatory. 

The suspended or withdrawn AB may appeal the decision in accordance with IAAC PR 005. 

2.7.4 Decisions on suspension shall state:

• the reasons for suspension; 

• the period of suspension (maximum 12 months) and/or the conditions for 

reacceptance into the IAAC MLA; 

• the consequences of suspension.

2.7.4.1 The consequences of suspension shall be decided by the IAAC MLA Group on a 

case by case basis, depending on the reason for suspension. The consequences of 

suspension may include, for the applicable scope:

• Not actively promote the fact that they are a signatory to the IAAC MLA;

• Not be able to participate in any ballots associated with the IAAC MLA;

• notify all accredited CABs of the suspension and the consequences of the 

suspension as it relates to them; and
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 39 of 49

• Notify stakeholders in their economies of the suspension.

2.7.4.2 The obligations of the accreditation body while suspended are:

• Continue to comply with the obligations of full membership;

• Cooperate fully with the IAAC MLA Group to enable a speedy resolution of the 

suspension;

• Maintain oversight of their signatories or accredited CABs.

2.7.5 If the signatory status of the AB is withdrawn, the AB has to inform all applicants and 

accredited CABs that the accreditation is no longer accepted under the IAAC MLA and the 

IAF/ILAC Arrangement and the CAB shall no longer make reference to the IAAC MLA and to 

IAF/ILAC Arrangement. 

2.7.5.1 When a withdrawn AB applies to become an IAAC signatory again, the procedure for 

new applicants must be followed. 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 40 of 49

Annex 5

Monitoring and Re-evaluation of a Single Accreditation Body

1. Periodic monitoring and re-evaluation of the Arrangement(s) is necessary.

2. All MLA Signatories shall be formally re-evaluated at maximum intervals of four years from 

the month when the previous full evaluation was done.

2.1 The procedures for reevaluation are essentially the same as for an initial evaluation. 

Although an application as per form FM 001 is not required, the AB shall provide the 

evaluation team all documents required in form FM 001, item 20, 90 days in advance of 

the evaluation. For planning of the witnessing, the AB shall also provide the evaluation 

team with a list of assessments that will take place from about 6 weeks before the 

proposed on-site evaluation date, or as agreed with the team leader. Failure to meet that 

deadline may lead to the cancelation of the re-evaluation and other action as found 

appropriate by the MLA Group (see Annex 4, clause 2.7.1).

2.1.1 In addition, as soon as the evaluation team is appointed, the MLA Secretary shall send 

the evaluation team:

a) The final report of the last evaluation or reevaluation;

b) Reports on any follow up visits done after the last evaluation/reevaluation;

c) The MLA Profile of the AB which includes all of the MLA Group resolutions regarding 

the AB, as well as other useful information for the evaluation team;

d) A list of the names of the CABs and assessors/experts that were witnessed during 

the previous evaluation, form FM 022; and

e) Information on accredited laboratories that have participated in proficiency testing 

programs of IAAC and other recognized regions’ programs, if applicable.

2.2 Where there are difficulties to agree on a date for the re-evaluation that suits the 

evaluation team and the accreditation body, the MLAC Chair may authorize the 

evaluation to be delayed for 30 days. Any delay longer that 30 days shall be considered 

by the IAAC MLA Group and may lead to suspension from the MLA or other actions as 

found appropriate by the IAAC MLA Group.

3. Partial to total re-evaluation may be conducted at an earlier date as directed by the MLA 

Group, should there be due cause such as notification of significant changes (see Annex 4, clause 

2.6).

Note: Re-evaluations may also be conducted earlier than the deadline if that is requested by the 

accreditation body, for example, in order to carry it out together with an evaluation for extension 

of the scope of recognition.

4. Monitoring of changes notified by an MLA signatory shall be appropriately examined (see 

Annex 4, clause 2.6).

5. The MLA Group shall monitor the implementation of new versions of standards applicable 

to the scope of the IAAC MLA, and if necessary other documents mandatory for the MLA, so as 

to ensure that implementation dates decided by IAAC, IAF and ILAC are met. The General 

Assembly shall approve a resolution about the procedures to be used to monitor the 

implementation. An example of such a resolution is given below:
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 41 of 49

“Considering that (IAAC, ILAC or IAF) has decided that the deadline for transferring 

accreditation to (standard and year of publication) is ( implementation date) and 

considering the obligation established in MD 002, Section 2, clause 2.2, in relation to 

implementation of that deadline, the General Assembly agrees that:

1) Certificates of (standard and year previous version) shall not be valid after 

(implementation date). 

2) Each MLA Group member shall submit a report to the MLAG on the implementation 

of (standard and year of publication) before each MLAG meeting held before the 

deadline. 

3) Each MLAG member shall submit a final report to the MLAG on (first day after the 

implementation date). This report shall state:

a) the number of conformity assessment bodies accredited to (standard and year of 

publication), 

b) the number of conformity assessment bodies whose accreditations have been 

suspended or cancelled because they have not been able to implement 

(standard and year of publication),

c) confirmation that there is no valid accreditation to the previous version of 

(standard).

4) In case an MLA signatory maintains any valid accreditation certificates to (standard 

and year of previous version), after the deadline, the Chair of the MLA Group shall 

suspend the MLA of that signatory for the scope of (specify MLA scope) until 

evidence that those certificates have been either withdrawn or suspended is 

submitted to the MLA Group.”
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 42 of 49

Annex 6

Disclosure of Evaluation Reports

1. A report on the evaluation of an accreditation body carried out on behalf of the IAAC MLA 

Group shall not be published in the public domain. 

2. An accreditation body may, however, choose to disclose the full report to its interested parties 

with the purpose of promoting the acceptance of the IAAC MLA under the conditions detailed 

below.

3. The evaluation report shall not be disclosed until after it has been formally considered by the 

IAAC MLA Group. 

4. The IAAC MLA Secretary may provide to the accreditation body the documents that may be 

collectively disclosed to interested parties. Those documents shall include the full evaluation 

report, including the responses to the findings and all other Annexes, and the IAAC MLA 

Group resolution arising from the consideration of the report. All references to any specific 

conformity assessment body and names of assessors shall be removed by the IAAC MLA 

Secretary from the documents that may be disclosed. The IAAC MLA Secretary may provide 

these documents to the accreditation body, if requested, within 30 days from the date of the 

MLA Group resolution.

5. The documentation provided by the IAAC MLA Secretary to the AB shall be disclosed by the 

AB collectively; together with an appropriate statement as to the confidential nature of the 

information, i.e. the information shall remain confidential to the accreditation body and the 

recipient except where the law requires such information to be disclosed.

6. Where the evaluation is performed jointly with other regional groups or with ILAC or IAF, the 

evaluation report shall not be disclosed unless there is agreement among the parties involved 

in the evaluation and the accreditation body.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 43 of 49

Annex 7

Extension of the Accreditation Body’s MLA scope

1. A signatory of the IAAC MLA may wish to extend its MLA to include new scopes. This Annex 

specifies the procedures to be followed for those extensions. The IAAC MLA structure is 

documented in PR 025 and includes 5 Levels. Those Levels are referred to in this Annex. The 

term “scope” is used in this Annex a generic term for all MLA Levels; the term “sub-scope” is 

used for Levels 4 and 5 of the IAAC MLA. 

2. Before an AB applies for an extension it shall have a minimum of one accredited CAB under 

the scope or sub scope applied for. If the AB does not have the minimum of accredited CABs 

the application shall not be considered by the MLA Group.

The AB shall apply for an extension of the IAAC MLA using FM 001. 

Note: Extensions of MLA scopes are not required for Levels 4 and 5, but for recognition of 

accreditation of sub-scopes for certification of management systems, the AB shall present to 

the MLA Secretary a self-declaration using IAF MLA MC 28 "MLA Declaration for sub-scope 

extensions (AB)". The MLA Group will decide on the acceptance of the self-declaration by 

resolution. This decision/resolution will be communicated to IAF by the IAAC Secretary.

Note: Instructions on how to evaluate the sub-scopes are described in Annex 2 clause 2.3

3. Extensions of scope to include a new Level 3 activity will require a full evaluation of all MLA 

requirements, similar to an evaluation for initial recognition for the IAAC.

4. The evaluation team will need to include at least one evaluator that is qualified for the MLA 

scope. If an evaluation for scope extension is done separately from a re-evaluation, depending 

on the evaluator’s experience, it may not be necessary to appoint a team leader to do the onsite evaluation, however a team leader shall be appointed to supervise the work of the 

evaluator and to make sure IAAC procedures are followed. 

5. Evaluation methodology for IAAC MLA signatories who are also IAF MLA signatories that are 

already recognized by Global G.A.P. for the Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) scheme.

MLA signatories of IAAC and IAF, that are currently recognized by Global G.A.P. for 

the IFA scheme could have their scope of the IAAC MLA extended to include the Global

G.A.P. IFA scheme without any initial evaluation based on the following:

a. MLA signatories that are currently recognized by Global G.A.P. have 

demonstrated compliance with ISO/IEC 17065,

b. MLA signatories recognized by Global G.A.P. have been working with the Global

G.A.P. IFA scheme for long periods

c. Global G.A.P. integrity program undertakes surveillance on 

accredited certification bodies and their certified suppliers,

d. The next re-evaluation of the IAAC MLA signatories whose scope includes Global

G.A.P. IFA scheme, will include the Global G.A.P. IFA scheme in the scope of 

their re-evaluation. (Instructions on how to evaluate the sub-scope are described 

in Annex 2 clause 2.3)
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 44 of 49
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 45 of 49

Annex 8

Guide for Evaluation teams

1 Introduction:

This Annex is produced as a guide and check list for IAAC evaluation teams to assist them in the 

planning and conduct of on- site peer evaluations. It is also a useful resource for IAAC 

accreditation bodies that are subject to these evaluations.

For initial evaluations and evaluation for extensions of scope, the AB is responsible for submission 

of the application for arrangement membership to the IAAC MLA Secretary who will carry out a 

review and if the application is complete, will send it to the MLA Group for a ballot. If the application 

is accepted, the Team Leader and Team Members will be appointed by the IAAC MLAC Chair 

within 90 days from the acceptance of the application. For a re-evaluation, the evaluation team is 

usually appointed from 6 to 12 months before the re- evaluation due date.

The MLA Secretary informs the AB of the composition of the Team, and the AB may object based 

on conflict of interest or impartiality.

2 Preparation for the evaluation 

2.1 The Team Leader must communicate with the AB to, identify any changes occurring since the 

submittal of the application, and identify potential dates for the evaluation.

2.2 For an initial evaluation all Team Members will receive the application and documentation 

from the IAAC MLA Secretary. For extensions of scope, the IAAC MLA Secretary will forward 

the application to the Team and the AB must provide the documentation specified in FM 001 

to the team 90 days in advance of the evaluation.

2.3 For a re-evaluation the AB shall provide the evaluation team all documents required in FM 

001 90 days in advance of the evaluation. Failure to meet that deadline may lead to the 

cancelation of the re-evaluation (see Annex 5, clause 2.1 of MD 002). The Team will also 

receive the previous evaluation report and other documentation from the IAAC MLA Secretary 

(See Annex 5, clause 2.1.1 of MD 002).

2.4 The Team will begin the document review as soon as they receive the documentation. For 

initial evaluations and extensions of scope the document review (FM 003) should be 

completed and sent to the AB 120 days after the appointment of the Team. FM 003 should 

also be sent to the AB before a re-evaluation. 

2.5 For initial evaluations, if a Preliminary Visit is done a short written report is submitted by the 

Team Leader and all corrective actions must be completed. The MLAG will receive the 

recommendation of the Team Leader and decide if a full evaluation can take place.

2.6 If the evaluation is done jointly with another Regional Body, the Team Leader should liaise 

with the Chair of the IAAC MLAC and the other region’s MLA Committee Chair to agree on 

specific arrangements for the evaluation.

2.7 The AB must provide a list of possible CABs to be visited including detailed scopes of 

accreditation preferably 3 months prior to the visit. (See Annex 2, section 2.3 for guidance on 

witnessing)
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 46 of 49

2.8 Team Leader must work with AB on agenda of the evaluation visit including:

- Dates of visit, to include any possible need to stay more than 5 days;

- Travel considerations including flight issues to/from the evaluation and travel to CABs for 

witnessing;

- Assignment of tasks to Team Members; care should be taken to avoid allocating the 

evaluation of related requirements to different members of the evaluation team, when 

there is not enough AB personnel available for interviewing, the purpose is to avoid 

duplication and restricted access to the appropriate AB staff;

- Need for interpreters;

- Ensure sufficient time for team meetings after the evaluation at the AB’s office, especially 

for the evening before the last day of the evaluation. Inform the AB of any dietary 

requirements and physical limitations of Team Members; 

- Ensure that the AB knows the requirement for arranging travel and accommodations, as 

well as for covering daily expenses incurred by the each Team Member;

- Need for a meeting room at the hotel the day before the evaluation and each evening 

during the evaluation; 

- Need for a private meeting room during the evaluation at the AB’s office;

- Need for Internet access at the AB ’s office and at the hotels;

- Identification of AB Staff Members who will be involved in the evaluation and the 

requirements they will be involved with (This information may be included in FM 004); 

- It may be important to document in FM 004 information regarding location, type of 

assessment and dates of the witnessing activities;

- Complete form FM 004 approximately 30 days prior to the visit and submit to the AB.

2.9 TL should check the AB website to review its accreditation scopes and the dates of 

accreditations renewals, in order to plan the peer evaluation schedule and to select the 

assessment activities to be witnessed. 

2.10 Team Leader must communicate with Team Members to:

- Obtain information about their technical background and experience in accreditation and 

peer evaluations, and language skills;

- Ensure Team Members understand the need to complete document review and submit 

comments for inclusion in Form FM 003;

- Verify Form FM 004 is completed and assignments understood;

- Ensure any special dietary or physical limitations are clearly communicated to the TL;

- Explain how travel and hotel arrangements will be made and how costs of will be 

managed; 

- Explain expectations at the AB’s site or witnessing sites including dress codes and /or 

safety issues.

2.11 Additional issues to be considered by the Team Leader during preparation:

- Is there a need to visit the NMI? (see Annex 2, section 2.5)

- Is the AB applying for recognition for a scope for which it is already a signatory of the MLA 

or a recognized regional body and /or IAF or ILAC? (see Annex 2, section 2.6)

- Determine a time for team meeting each day by telephone or some other means 

communication.

- Preparation of part of draft report using submitted self-evaluation given in FM 003.

- Consider the need to mentor and supervise trainee evaluators.
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 47 of 49

2.12 Evaluation team meeting before the evaluation 

The Team Leader should conduct a meeting with the Team Members the day before the 

evaluation in which discussions should focus on: 

- Identification of key items arising from the documentation review to follow-up on;

- For re-evaluations, identification of any findings from the previous evaluation that need to 

be reviewed and any special instructions / resolution from the IAAC MLA Group 

concerning the evaluation; 

- What objective evidence to going to be sought to verify conformity requirements;

- Assignment of any specific task to Team Members; 

- Any queries to be clarified during the opening meeting;

- Confirmation of means of communication and issues to be reported, particularly when 

Team Members need to travel for witnessing;

- Review of expectations during witnessing (IAF-ILAC A3, Annex V); 

- Confirmation on expectations on reporting from each Team Member (findings, summary 

report, IAF-ILAC A3);

- Provide any necessary guidance to trainee evaluators and confirm how they will be 

mentored / supervised;

- Confirmation of evaluation plan (FM 004) and any need for changes, verify that documents 

not applicable to the evaluations scope are deleted from the plan.

3 During the evaluation 

3.1 The Team Leader should:

- Lead the opening meeting; ensure any queries from team members have been clarified 

with AB and remind the AB the classification of findings as describe in MD 002;

- Ensure the evaluation remains on track; 

- Ensure team members gather sufficient objective evidence to support their findings; 

- Mentor less experienced team members;

- Ensure AB receives feedback, as appropriate, throughout the evaluation; 

- Ensure team discussions remain on track;

- Gather information from team members each evening. 

- Ensure that meetings and other communications among the team focus on: 

• follow up on issues as decided the day before, 

• findings already confirmed, potential findings and additional evidence to be 

sought, 

• issues to be followed up and assignment of tasks, 

• confirmation that plans are on track and need for changes of plans, 

• confirmation that reports (IAF-ILAC A3) are being done by each team 

member as planned;

- Ensure that the meeting the evening before the last day focuses on:

• confirmation of findings and their classification by all team members 

• drafting the summary report (as far as possible),

• issues to be finalized the last day,

• confirmation of the time by which all findings and the summary report will 

be completed the next day for review by the AB before the final meeting, 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 48 of 49

• remind team members that report on witnessing (IAF-ILAC A3, Annex V) 

should have been completed before that meeting. If that is not possible, all 

issues that may result in a finding shall be reported during the meeting and 

IAF-ILAC A3, Annex V shall be delivered to the Team Leader soon after 

the evaluation.

- Ensure findings are based on clear and objective evidence, are correctly classified and 

assigned to clauses of ISO/IEC 17011 and other MLA requirements; 

- IAF-ILAC A3, Annex I, should be reviewed for comment by the AB prior to the closing 

meeting;

- Prepare summary report and list of Nonconformities and Comments (IAF-ILAC A3 Annex 

I) for presentation to AB at closing meeting; 

- Recommendations for follow up visits should be made based on:

• the need of confirming implementation of actions, 

• AB has not demonstrated enough experience due to a limited number of 

accredited CABs or limited number of evaluators,

• Or the peer evaluation team may indicate that the recommendation for 

follow up will be made after they received the AB’s response for the 

findings. The summary report should highlight any findings that are 

recurrences of findings from the previous evaluations;

- Ensure, during closing meeting, that any misunderstandings are clarified, disagreements 

resolved;

3.2 Team Members should:

- Follow the evaluation plan and instructions given by the Team Leader;

- Make sure enough evidence is collected to confirm compliance and competence, or 

sufficient evidence for any finding;

- Keep notes of evidence collected for reference (document number, forms, identification 

and dates of records, details observed in records, persons interviewed, etc.);

- Make sure the AB understands any finding and is given opportunity to clarify the issue;

- Make sure the person that provides information is the appropriate responsible person in 

the AB and, if necessary double check and reconfirm the information given;

- Not interfere with the work of AB assessors during witness; 

- Provide feedback after the conclusion of the witnessing and clarify any outstanding issues 

with the AB assessors

- Make notes of discussion, records and documents during witnessing so that information 

may be recollected and confirmed with assessors after the end of the witnessing; 

- Confirm facts with assessors and AB representative after the end of witnessing;

- Report to the Team Leader any issues that may need to be confirmed by other team 

members; 

- Complete reports on time.

4 After the evaluation 

4.1 The Team Leader should:

- Provide the draft report, agreed among the team members, to the AB for comment and 

correction of factual errors (if necessary) within 60 days of the evaluation visit (see Annex 

3, section 1.2);

- Review the AB ’s corrective action and response report (IAF-ILAC A3 Annex I), assigning 

parts to team members, as applicable; 
POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR AN MLA AMONG ACCREDITATION BODIES

Date of Issue: July 30, 2021 IAAC MD 002/21 Page 49 of 49

- Ensure AB provides evidence of identification of and correction of the root cause(s) of 

non-conformities, as well as a response to comments (see Annex 3, section 5);

- Advise the AB if the response is acceptable within 30 days of receipt; 

- Ensure the deadlines for responses from the AB and the team for delivering the report to 

the MLAC Chair is met (see Annex 3, section 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6);

- Once the team is satisfied that the AB ’s response is satisfactory and all necessary 

corrective action has been taken, prepare a recommendation to the IAAC MLA Group and 

include it in the Final Report (IAF-ILAC A3);

- Send the Final Report (IAF-ILAC A3)(findings, AB ’s response, evaluation team ’s reaction 

to that response), and any relevant annexes to the MLA Secretary and the MLAC Chair, 

together with Lists of Witnessed Assessment (FM 022);

- complete evaluator performance log for each team member (FM 007) and send it to the 

IAAC MLA Secretary; 

- In case the Final Report is distributed to the MLA Group for written comments, respond to 

comments as requested and amend the Final Report, if necessary (see Annex 4); within 

30 days

- Inform the MLA Secretary whether you will be present in the next MLAC meeting or 

whether you may be available via Internet. In case attendance of the meeting is not 

possible, inform the MLA Secretary who may represent the evaluation team during the 

meeting.

4.2 Team Members should:

- Provide the Team Leader their complete report on assessments witnessed (IAF-ILAC A3 

Annex V) immediately after the evaluation (if not complete during the evaluation);

- Provide the Team Leader their assigned part of the Final Report (IAF-ILAC A3) 

immediately after the evaluation; 

- Review AB ’s response for the findings assigned to him/her as soon as they are received;

- Complete evaluator performance log for the Team Leader (FM 008) and send it to the 

IAAC MLA Secretary.