NISTHB 150-20

NVLAP

Common

Criteria

Testing

Dana S. Leaman

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.HB.150-20
This page is intentionally left blank.
NISTHB 150-20

NVLAP

Common

Criteria

Testing

Dana S. Leaman

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

Standards Coordination Office

Laboratory Programs

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.HB.150-20

June 2014

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director
NVLAP AND THE NVLAP LOGO

The term NVLAP and the NVLAP logo are registered 

marks of the Federal Government, which retains 

exclusive rights to control the use thereof. Permission 

to use the term and symbol (NVLAP logo with 

approved caption) is granted to NVLAP-accredited 

laboratories for the limited purpose of announcing 

their accredited status, and for use on reports that 

describe only testing and calibration within the scope 

of accreditation. NVLAP reserves the right to control 

the quality of the use of the NVLAP term, logo, and 

symbol.
Contents

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

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................vii

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Terms and definitions...............................................................................................................3

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 NVLAP renewal of accreditation.............................................................................................6

3.4 Suspending and revoking accreditation....................................................................................8

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

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

4.2 Management system.................................................................................................................9

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

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

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

4.6 Purchasing services and supplies ...........................................................................................10

4.7 Service to the customer ..........................................................................................................10

4.8 Complaints .............................................................................................................................10

4.9 Control of nonconforming testing and/or calibration work....................................................10

4.10 Improvement ..........................................................................................................................10

4.11 Corrective action ....................................................................................................................10

4.12 Preventive action....................................................................................................................10

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

4.14 Internal audits.........................................................................................................................11

4.15 Management reviews..............................................................................................................11

5 Technical requirements for accreditation ..........................................................................................11

5.1 General ...................................................................................................................................11

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

5.3 Accommodation and environmental conditions.....................................................................13

5.4 Test and calibration methods and method validation.............................................................14

5.5 Equipment ..............................................................................................................................14

5.6 Measurement traceability .......................................................................................................15

5.7 Sampling ................................................................................................................................15

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 iii
5.8 Handling of test items ............................................................................................................15

5.9 Assuring the quality of test results.........................................................................................15

5.10 Reporting the results...............................................................................................................16

6 Additional requirements....................................................................................................................16

Annex A (informative) Initial accreditation................................................................................................17

Annex B (normative) Written procedures...................................................................................................21

iv NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
Foreword

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

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

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

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

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

body;

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

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

NVLAP laboratory accreditation programs (LAPs).

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

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

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

NIST Handbook 150-20, NVLAP Common Criteria Testing, presents the technical requirements and 

guidance for the accreditation of laboratories under the NVLAP Common Criteria Testing LAP. The 

2014 edition of NIST Handbook 150-20 supersedes and replaces the 2005 edition.

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

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

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

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

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

changed;

• all requirements have been updated to reflect the relevant changes within the National Information 

Assurance Partnership (NIAP); and

• the number of annexes has been reduced from four to two.

Annexes A and B show the sequence of events and the responsible parties for initial accreditation and 

development of written procedures.

This handbook is also available on the NVLAP website (http://www.nist.gov/nvlap).

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

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

975-4016; fax: 301-926-2884; e-mail: nvlap@nist.gov.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 v
Acknowledgments

This document was revised by the Aerospace Corporation under the guidance of Mark Loepker (previous 

NIAP Director) and Jeanne Peterson (Acting NIAP Director). These revisions include technical changes 

to update the handbook based upon the experience of the National Information Assurance Partnership

(NIAP) since the start of CCEVS (Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme) evaluations in 

2000, and format changes to match NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements.

vi NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (Common Evaluation 

Methodology or CEM).

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

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

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

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

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

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

during initial evaluation(s) and provides CCTL performance feedback to NVLAP during ongoing 

operations.

A CCTL is accredited to perform Common Criteria-based security evaluations of IT products using the 

assurance activities specified in NIAP-approved Protection Profiles, NIAP-approved collaborative 

Protection Profiles, and Security Targets and the Common Criteria assurance classes Protection Profile 

Evaluation (APE), Security Target Evaluation (ASE), and assurance package Evaluation Assurance Level 

(EAL) 1 and the corresponding Common Evaluation Methodology. An IT product can be a single 

product or multiple IT products configured as an IT system or system solution to meet certain consumer 

needs. The testing occurs in a testing facility or at a customer’s site, but not generally in the actual 

operational environments.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 vii
This page is intentionally left blank.

viii NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
1 General information

1.1 Scope

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

of Common Criteria Testing Laboratories (CCTLs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

with a specified set of Common Criteria requirements.

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

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

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

also addressed in this handbook.

1.2 Organization of handbook

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

handbook must be combined to produce the criteria for accreditation in the ITST CC program.

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

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

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

refer to NIST Handbook 150.

1.2.3 Annex A is informative and Annex B is normative.

1.3 Program description

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

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

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

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

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

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

incorporate new versions of the Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology as they evolve.

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

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

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

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

receive a Common Criteria certificate and be listed on the NIAP Product Compliant List. A mutual 

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 1
recognition arrangement, signed by United States government agencies and similar agencies representing 

25 other economies (as of 2013), promotes the acceptance of products evaluated and validated in one 

economy by all signatories.

1.4 References

The following documents are referenced in this handbook or identified for additional reference 

information. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest 

edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) shall apply within one year of 

publication or within another time limit specified by regulations or other requirement documents.

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

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

1.4.2 NIAP scheme publications, available at

https://www.niap-ccevs.org/Documents_and_Guidance/guidance_docs.cfm:

— Publication #1, Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Organization, Management 

and Concept of Operations, Version 2.0

— Publication #2, Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Quality Manual and Standard 

Operating Procedures, Version 2.0

— Publication #3, Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Guidance to Validators, 

Version 2.0

— Publication #4, Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Guidance to CCEVS Approved 

Common Criteria Testing Laboratories, Version 2.0

— Publication #5, Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Guidance to Sponsors, 

Version 2.0

— Publication #6, Common Criteria Evaluation and Validation Scheme - Assurance Continuity: 

Guidance for Maintenance and Re-evaluation, Version 2.0

1.4.3 Documents available at the CCEVS website,

https:/www.niap-ccevs.org/Documents_and_Guidance/cc_docs.cfm:

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

— Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation (CEM)

— Assurance Continuity: CCRA Requirements

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

Technology Security.

2 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
1.5 Terms and definitions

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

Criteria, the NIAP CCEVS publications, and the following apply.

1.5.1

Common Criteria certificate

Formal recognition by the NIAP validation body that the IT security evaluation has been conducted in 

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

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

Product Compliant List or Validated Products List.

1.5.2

evaluation

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

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

notion of “testing.”

1.5.3

IT product

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

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

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

1.5.4

Protection Profile (PP)

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

specific consumer needs.

1.5.5

Security Target (ST)

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

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

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

specific security mechanisms that are employed.

1.5.6

Target of Evaluation (TOE)

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

security evaluation under the Common Criteria.

1.5.7

validation

The process carried out by the CCEVS validation body leading to the issue of a Common Criteria 

certificate.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 3
1.6 Program documentation

1.6.1 General

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

requirements found in NIST Handbook 150 and this handbook. Checklists contain definitive statements 

or questions about all aspects of the NVLAP criteria for accreditation and form part of the on-site 

assessment documentation (see NIST Handbook 150). Use of checklists helps to ensure the 

completeness, objectivity, and uniformity of the on-site assessment process. The current version of each 

checklist is available on the NVLAP website (http://www.nist.gov/nvlap).

1.6.2 NIST Handbook 150 Checklist

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

Checklist), which contains the requirements imposed upon all NVLAP laboratories. The checklist items 

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

1.6.3 NIST Handbook 150-20 Checklist

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

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

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

1.6.4 NVLAP Lab Bulletins

NVLAP lab bulletins are issued to laboratories and assessors, when needed, to clarify program-specific 

requirements and to provide information about program additions and changes.

2 LAP establishment, development and implementation

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

3 Accreditation process

3.1 General

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

laboratories. The accreditation process includes both NIAP and NVLAP requirements. This handbook 

documents only the NVLAP portion of the accreditation process. The NIAP requirements associated with

laboratory accreditation are documented in NIAP scheme publications.

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

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

assessments may be performed at NVLAP discretion. 

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

requirements. The proficiency test consists of the laboratory conducting an evaluation using the Common 

4 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
Criteria in accordance with NIAP CCEVS requirements. Successful completion of the evaluation is a 

requirement for initial NVLAP accreditation as well as continuing accreditation. 

3.1.4 Annex A presents the details of the assessment process including the timeline and responsibilities 

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

3.2 Initial accreditation (see also Annex A)

3.2.1 General

3.2.1.1 It is important to note that the candidate laboratory will only be accredited to perform evaluations 

using the assurances specified in NIAP-approved Protection Profiles, NIAP-approved collaborative 

Protection Profiles, and Security Targets using the Common Criteria assurance classes APE, ASE, and 

assurance package EAL 1 and the corresponding Common Evaluation Methodology. Hence, there is only 

one potential scope of accreditation.

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Management system review

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

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

forms.

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

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

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

potential areas of noncompliance with the accreditation requirements. If the number and nature of these 

identified areas raise concern with the candidate laboratory’s overall management system, the assessor(s) 

may recommend a delay in proceeding any further in the accreditation process until such time as the areas 

of noncompliance have been addressed, 

3.2.3 Initial on-site assessment

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

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

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

successfully complete the initial Common Criteria evaluation. 

3.2.3.2 Nonconformities identified during the initial on-site visit shall be corrected prior to the 

completion of the accreditation process. Nonconformities that impact the initial evaluation shall be 

corrected prior to starting the initial evaluation. The laboratory must provide NVLAP with a response to 

the initial on-site assessment report. NVLAP will review the response and may ask for additional 

information.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 5
3.2.3.3 Once the assessor(s) has determined that the management system meets the defined 

requirements, NVLAP will notify NIAP that the laboratory is ready to begin the initial evaluation.

3.2.4 Proficiency testing using an initial evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

Report (ETR) that can be validated by NIAP.

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

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

requirements are described in NIAP publications.

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

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

assurance activities;

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

assurance activities specified in the relevant PP during the initial evaluation; and

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

evaluation activities. For the evaluation-specific records that could not be checked during the 

initial on-site assessment, a statement from NIAP, confirming that all evaluation-related 

products were validated, will be accepted as evidence of completion of those records until a 

full on-site assessment (see 3.3.3) is conducted.

3.2.5 NVLAP review

3.2.5.1 Once NVLAP has been informed by NIAP of successful completion of the initial proficiency test, 

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

information drawn from the management system review, on-site visit(s), and the proficiency testing. This 

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

deny accreditation. 

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

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

3.3 NVLAP renewal of accreditation

3.3.1 General

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

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

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

6 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
3.3.1.2 In the first renewal year and every two years thereafter, an on-site assessment of the laboratory is 

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

format of a NVLAP full on-site assessment visit is documented below.

3.3.2 Full on-site assessment

3.3.2.1 Typically two NVLAP assessors will perform the full on-site visit over a two-day period. The 

assessment will take place at the laboratory site. 

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

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

laboratory’s quality manual. Efforts will be made to minimize disruption to the normal working routines 

during the assessment. The assessors will need time and workspace to complete assessment 

documentation during their time at the laboratory site.

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

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

handbook, ensure that the assessment is complete and that all assessors cover the same items at each 

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

delve more deeply into a technical issue.

3.3.2.4 The activities covered during a typical on-site assessment are described below. The assessors, 

prior to the visit, will provide a specific agenda.

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

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

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

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

meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

internal audit records, management review records, equipment and maintenance records, recordkeeping procedures, testing procedures, laboratory evaluation records and reports, personnel 

competency records, personnel training plans and records, procedures for updating pertinent 

information (e.g., Common Criteria or Common Evaluation Methodology versions, NIAP validation 

body guidance or interpretations, or the validated products list), and safeguards for the protection of 

vendor-sensitive and proprietary information.

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

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

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

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

performance reviews). In these cases, the assessors will work with the candidate laboratory to ensure 

that they are able to perform their review without violating individual privacy. At the discretion of 

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 7
the laboratory, a member of its Human Resources department may be present during the review of 

personnel information.

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

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

execution of that methodology will be reviewed and discussed. 

e) Issues from prior on-site: The assessors will review and discuss any previous on-site assessment

findings. This will normally include verification that any nonconformities from a previous on-site 

assessment have been satisfactorily addressed and a review of comments previously identified. 

f) Closing meeting: At the end of the on-site assessment, a closing meeting is held with the laboratory 

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

categorized all problems identified as nonconformities or comments. The assessors, in their 

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

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

during the on-site visit is documented in NIST Handbook 150. Comments should be given serious 

consideration by the laboratory. 

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

resolution.

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

the findings. This report normally consists of the On-Site Signature Sheet with Narrative, the NIST 

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

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

laboratory representative.

3.3.3 Demonstration of continued proficiency

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

Criteria evaluations by successfully completing a commercial evaluation at least once every two years 

under the oversight of the NIAP validation scheme. Upon completion or termination of each NIAP 

evaluation, NIAP will report to NVLAP the results of the evaluation along with any nonconformities. 

The continuing demonstration of successful completion of NIAP evaluations will serve to meet the 

NVLAP proficiency testing requirement.

3.4 Suspending and revoking accreditation

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

150.

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

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

result in immediate suspension.

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

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

accreditation may be suspended or revoked.

8 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
3.4.4 Failure to appropriately address and resolve complaints from customers, NIAP, or other interested 

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

revocation of accreditation.

4 Management requirements for accreditation

4.1 Organization

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

impartiality and integrity in the conduct of information technology security evaluations. When 

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

shall ensure that:

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

Target, or IT product, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to know, and from other unauthorized persons.

4.1.4 The laboratory shall create and maintain a cross-reference document mapping clauses 4 and 5 and

annexes A and B of Handbook 150 and clauses 4 and 5 and annex B of this handbook to the laboratory’s 

management system documentation.

4.2 Management system

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

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

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

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

security evaluations.

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

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

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

described in Annex B.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 9
4.3 Document control

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

4.4 Review of requests, tenders and contracts

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

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

4.5 Subcontracting of tests and calibrations

This program defines subcontracting of tests to be the use of testing services outside of the laboratory to 

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

(EMI) testing or Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140 validation.

4.6 Purchasing services and supplies

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

4.7 Service to the customer

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

4.8 Complaints

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

4.9 Control of nonconforming testing and/or calibration work

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

4.10 Improvement

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

4.11 Corrective action

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

4.12 Preventive action

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

10 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
4.13 Control of records

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

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

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

actions and the applicable assurance activities specified in the associated PPs. Computer-based records 

shall contain entries indicating the date created and the individual(s) who performed the work, along with 

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

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

procedures and in a manner that ensures record integrity. There shall be appropriate backups and 

archives.

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

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

assurance activity and can concur with the verdict. Records include evaluator notebooks, records relating 

to the product, work-unit and assurance activity level records, and client-site records.

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

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

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

4.14 Internal audits

4.14.1 The laboratory shall perform a complete internal audit of its management system, including the 

activities and records related to its evaluations, prior to each full on-site assessment visit.

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

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

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

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

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

experts may also be used in these situations.

4.15 Management reviews

The laboratory shall perform a complete management review prior to each full on-site assessment visit.

5 Technical requirements for accreditation

5.1 General

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

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

handbook.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 11
5.2 Personnel

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

Common Criteria-based IT security evaluations. The laboratory shall maintain position descriptions, 

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

have an effect on the outcome of security evaluations.

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

including: Laboratory Director, Authorized Representative, Approved Signatories, evaluation team 

leaders, and senior evaluators. An individual may be assigned or appointed to serve in more than one 

position; however, to the extent possible, the Laboratory Director and the Quality Manager positions 

should be independently staffed.

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

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

resume for each new staff member.

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

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

the information that the NVLAP assessors need to review.

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

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

experience.

5.2.6 Laboratory staff collectively shall have knowledge or experience for any specific technologies 

upon which an evaluation is conducted.

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

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

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

Evaluation Methodology changes, as new technology specific assurance activities are defined in NIAP 

approved PPs, or when the individuals are assigned new responsibilities. Each staff member may receive 

training for assigned duties either through on-the-job training, formal classroom study, attendance at 

conferences, or another appropriate mechanism. Training materials that are maintained within the 

laboratory shall be kept up-to-date.

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

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

appointed by the Laboratory Director, shall conduct annually an assessment and an observation of 

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

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

maintained in the management system. 

5.2.9 The CCTL shall maintain responsibility for and control of any work performed within its scope of 

accreditation. To that end, the CCTL shall ensure that all individuals performing evaluation activities 

satisfy all NVLAP requirements, irrespective of the means by which individuals are compensated (e.g.,

the CCTL shall ensure all evaluators receive proper training and are subject to annual performance 

reviews, etc.).

12 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
5.2.10 The records for each staff member having an effect on the outcome of evaluations shall include: 

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

review, and training records and training plans.

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

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

the laboratory, but inside the parent organization.

5.3 Accommodation and environmental conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

restored in the event of their loss.

5.3.4 Laboratory networks used to conduct Test Documentation and the Test Activity (ATE) and 

Vulnerability Assessment Activity (AVA) evaluation activities shall be effectively isolated to ensure that 

there are no external influences on test results.

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

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

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

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

with the NIAP/CCEVS. Internet access also is required for obtaining revisions to the guidance and 

interpretations.

5.3.6 If evaluation activities are conducted outside the laboratory, the management system shall include 

appropriate procedures for conducting security evaluation activities at customer sites or other off-site 

locations. For example, customer site procedures may explain how to secure the site, where to store 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

entities do not gain access to the system during evaluation.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 13
5.4 Test and calibration methods and method validation

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

methodology using the Common Criteria (CC), the Common Evaluation Methodology (CEM), Protection 

Profile-specific assurance activities, and additional laboratory-developed methodology. The version of 

the CC and CEM to be used in each evaluation shall be established in consultation with NIAP and the 

sponsor.

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

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

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

criteria or methodology provided in the NIAP-approved Protection Profiles; the laboratory shall comply 

with the guidance or interpretations within the timeframe specified by the CCEVS.

5.4.3 The Common Criteria, Common Evaluation Methodology, NIAP-approved PP assurance 

activities, NIAP guidance and interpretations, and the laboratory’s procedures for conducting security 

evaluations shall be maintained up-to-date and be readily available to the staff.

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

Common Criteria and Common Evaluation Methodology, and for complying with NIAP-approved PP

assurance activities, guidance, or interpretations. The laboratory shall ensure that these procedures are 

followed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

customer shall be informed, and details of these exceptions shall be described in the evaluation report.

5.5 Equipment

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

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

generation capability.

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

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

equipment within its control.

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

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

software) used for testing is in a known state prior to use for testing.

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

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

14 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
as applicable. Test equipment refers to software and hardware products or other assessment mechanisms 

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

5.5.5 The laboratory shall ensure that its test equipment is calibrated. In Common Criteria testing, 

calibration means verification of correctness and suitability. Any test tools used to conduct security 

evaluations that are not part of the unit under evaluation shall be studied in isolation to make sure that

they correctly represent and assess the test assertions they make. They shall also be examined to ensure

that they do not interfere with the conduct of the test and do not modify or impact the integrity of the 

product under test in any way. Laboratories shall have procedures that ensure appropriate configuration of 

all test equipment. Laboratories shall maintain records of the configuration of test equipment and all 

analyses to ensure the suitability of test equipment to perform the desired testing.

5.6 Measurement traceability

For Common Criteria testing, “traceability” is interpreted to mean that security evaluation activities are 

linked to the underlying Common Criteria requirements and work units in the Common Evaluation 

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

conduct and the test assertions they make are aligned with specific criteria and methodology. This is 

necessary to ensure that test results constitute credible evidence of compliance with the CC and CEM.

5.7 Sampling

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

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

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

5.8 Handling of test items

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

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

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

documentation.

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

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

software components during the evaluation process.

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

and hardware after the completion of the evaluation.

5.9 Assuring the quality of test results

The laboratory shall have procedures for conducting final review of evaluation results, the final report that 

satisfies NIAP reporting requirements, and the laboratory records of the evaluation prior to their 

submission to the customer and/or CCEVS.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 15
5.10 Reporting the results

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

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

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

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

5.10.2 There may be two types of evaluation reports:

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

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

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

CCEVS and all NIAP reporting requirements. The evaluation report shall contain sufficient information 

for the exact test conditions and results to be reproduced at a later time if a reexamination or retest is 

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

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

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

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

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

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

CCEVS.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements.

6 Additional requirements

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

and any other normative references previously cited in this handbook.

1 Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this handbook in order to specify the 

procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are 

necessarily the best available for the purpose.

16 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014

 
Annex A

(informative)

Initial accreditation

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

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

NVLAP (NIST Handbook 150 and NIST Handbook 150-20). Approved Common Criteria Testing 

Laboratories (CCTLs) are IT security testing laboratories that are accredited by NVLAP and meet 

CCEVS-specific requirements to conduct IT security evaluations for conformance to the Common 

Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation. The initial accreditation matrix below provides 

a chronology of the initial accreditation process.

Initial Accreditation Matrix

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP

1 The laboratory reviews 

NIAP requirements and 

verifies that it meets those 

requirements.

NIAP Information

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

(410) 854-4458 (phone)

(410) 854-6615 (fax)

ccevs-staff@nist.gov

2 Once the laboratory believes 

it has satisfied all NIAP 

requirements, it sends a

letter to NIAP indicating its 

intent to pursue 

accreditation.

NIAP begins planning resources to 

be used in the validation process. 

NIAP will send an informal note to 

NVLAP indicating that the 

laboratory has expressed its intent to 

pursue accreditation.

3 The laboratory reviews 

NVLAP requirements 

including NIST Handbooks 

150 and 150-20 and all 

NIAP Common Criteria Lab 

Bulletins.

NVLAP Information

http://www.nist.gov/nvlap

(301) 975-4016 (phone)

(301) 926-2884 (fax)

nvlap@nist.gov

4 The laboratory verifies that 

it meets all NVLAP 

requirements for 

accreditation by creating a 

mapping between all 

NVLAP requirements and 

the laboratory’s 

management system.

5 The laboratory completes an 

application for NVLAP 

accreditation. The 

application includes 

payment of applicable fees 

identified in the NVLAP fee 

schedule.

The NVLAP application and fee 

schedule are available from 

NVLAP’s web site: 

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

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 17
Initial Accreditation Matrix

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP

6 The laboratory sends 

management system 

documents, application, and 

payment of all applicable 

fees to NVLAP. 

NVLAP processes the application 

and assigns an assessor to review 

the management system 

documentation submitted. The 

assessor, through NVLAP, will 

communicate his/her findings to 

the laboratory.

7 The laboratory resolves

potential areas of 

noncompliance with the 

accreditation requirements. 

If the number and nature of these 

identified areas raise concern with 

the candidate laboratory’s overall 

management system, the 

assessor(s) may recommend a 

delay in proceeding any further in 

the process until such time as the 

areas of noncompliance have been 

addressed.

8 Once NVLAP determines that the 

management system 

documentation meets the NVLAP 

requirements, the initial on-site 

visit to the laboratory is scheduled.

9 The NVLAP assessor(s)

typically conducts a two-day 

initial on-site assessment 

visit. 

The NVLAP assessor(s) conducts 

the initial on-site assessment. The 

assessment will include, but is not 

limited to, a review of management

system, staff, environment, 

equipment, knowledge of CC and 

CEM, and readiness to conduct the

initial evaluation(s).

At the conclusion of the visit, the 

assessor(s) provides the laboratory 

with a copy of the report. If the 

laboratory does not meet all 

requirements, those findings may 

include nonconformities and 

comments.

10 The laboratory resolves all 

nonconformities.

If the resolution of the 

nonconformities requires an 

additional visit or significant 

additional oversight by the NVLAP 

assessor(s), then additional fees 

will be charged to the laboratory. 

18 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
Initial Accreditation Matrix

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP

11 Once NVLAP determines that the 

laboratory has satisfactorily 

resolved all nonconformities 

related to the initial on-site

assessment, NVLAP notifies NIAP 

and the laboratory that the 

laboratory is ready for proficiency 

testing (proficiency testing is 

performed through an initial 

evaluation monitored by NIAP).

12 Upon receiving notification, 

the next action for the 

laboratory is to find a 

vendor/sponsor and reach 

agreement to submit the

product for NIAP 

evaluation. The CCTL

discusses its prospective

vendor/sponsor and 

proposed product with 

CCEVS management prior 

to contract signing to ensure 

that the product (TOE) is 

acceptable for evaluation 

against an approved PP and

both the CCTL and the 

vendor/sponsor understand 

the conditions of the NIAP 

initial evaluation. 

Upon receiving notification that the 

laboratory is ready to proceed with

proficiency testing, NIAP works

with the laboratory to identify an 

appropriate product for evaluation. 

Because TOEs can fill the entire 

spectrum from simple to complex, 

NIAP must ensure that the TOE, and 

hence the work involved in 

evaluating that TOE, provides the 

evidence needed for NIAP to 

determine the lab’s proficiency.

In order to ensure the independence 

of the evaluation, CCEVS 

management verifies that the 

laboratory and the sponsor 

understand that neither the 

laboratory nor other divisions within 

its parent corporation shall provide 

consulting services (e.g., develop 

evaluation evidence) for the 

products selected for the initial 

evaluations.

CCEVS management informs the 

sponsor of the inherent risks related 

to the initial evaluation and suggest 

specific risk-mitigating actions of 

the sponsor to avoid legal and/or 

financial hardship. One riskmitigating factor will be to ensure 

that the evaluation results are 

available to the vendor/sponsor to 

allow the results of an evaluation to 

be moved to an accredited 

laboratory should the laboratory 

experience issues that would cause 

the CCTL to not be accredited.

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 19
Initial Accreditation Matrix

No. LABORATORY NIAP NVLAP

13 Once the vendor/sponsor, 

laboratory, and CCEVS are 

in agreement, the laboratory 

submits an evaluation work 

package for the initial 

evaluation to NIAP CCEVS.

Upon receipt of the evaluation work 

package, CCEVS management will 

then assign a validator and senior 

validator who will provide oversight 

during the laboratory’s initial 

evaluation. After reviewing the 

evaluation work package, the 

assigned senior validator will 

schedule the kickoff meeting.

14 The laboratory will conduct 

the initial evaluation under 

the oversight of CCEVS.

During the initial evaluation, NIAP 

verifies the effectiveness of the 

laboratory's management system. 

This activity occurs periodically 

over the course of the evaluation and 

is reported on the NIAP CCEVS 

quality system checklist.

NVLAP will monitor the progress 

of the initial evaluation/proficiency 

test and may observe “sync”

sessions between CCEVS and the 

candidate lab.

NVLAP will review 

nonconformities, comments, and 

concerns from NIAP validation 

team.

15 At the conclusion of the initial 

evaluation, NIAP CCEVS will 

notify NVLAP of the outcome and 

forward a copy of the NIAP CCEVS 

assessment report to NVLAP. NIAP 

will provide the laboratory 

notification that the proficiency test 

is complete.

NVLAP reviews the report of the 

conduct of the initial evaluation for 

the purpose of fulfilling the 

NVLAP proficiency testing 

requirements. 

16 Once all NVLAP and appropriate 

NIAP requirements have been met, 

NVLAP grants initial accreditation 

for scope based on initial 

evaluation/proficiency test.

NVLAP notifies NIAP CCEVS 

and the laboratory that the 

laboratory has been accredited.

17 NIAP CCEVS issues a certification 

for the product evaluated during the 

initial evaluation.

18 The accredited laboratory 

continues to maintain its 

management system, which 

includes notifications to 

both NVLAP and NIAP of 

changes in key staffing 

positions, ownership, and/or 

facilities.

20 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014
Annex B

(normative)

Written procedures

B.1 Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Handbook 150 and this handbook. Failure to have implemented procedures may lead to a delay in 

granting the initial accreditation or suspension of NVLAP accreditation.

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

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

can be granted:

a) staff training and individual development plans, and

b) plans for staff who work at home and at alternate work sites outside the laboratory (e.g., 

telecommuting).

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

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

procedure for writing PP-specific assurance activity instructions before an evaluation is conducted:

a) writing a work plan for an evaluation;

b) selecting the members of an evaluation team;

c) writing the Final Evaluation Report;

d) writing an Observation Report (OR);

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

f) conducting evaluations using the assurance activities specified in NIAP-approved Protection 

Profiles, NIAP-approved collaborative Protection Profiles, and Security Targets and the Common 

Criteria assurance classes APE, ASE, and assurance package EAL 1 and the corresponding Common 

Evaluation Methodology;

g) requesting and incorporating CC interpretations;

NIST Handbook 150-20:2014 21
h) working with NIAP or other validators during an evaluation;

i) keeping records for evaluations; and

j) writing assurance activity-level instructions to describe how the activity will be performed for a 

given TOE evaluation.

NOTE Most assurance activities will not require CCTL-specific instructions. NIAP tries to provide complete 

instructions along with the description of the assurance activities in the NIAP-approved PPs. However, that 

objective might not always be achievable as PPs evolve and the suite of PPs expands.

22 NIST Handbook 150-20:2014