Discussion 6-2011

Due 16 October 2011

PAC Discussion Paper

Name of party submitting issue for discussion (optional): IOAS
Area involved : Accreditation of Product certification
Statement of the issue:
IOAS has encountered a case of a certification body that is sending letters to clients of other certification bodies to offer them to transfer their certification to them.
The letters that are sent to the clients of the other certification body offers to waive the application fee if the client responds within a certain time frame. This appears to be discriminatory (offering cheaper deals to a limited group of people) but we do not find anything in ISO65 or IAF guide GD5 that clearly prohibits this.
The nearest we see is the rather general requirement at clause 4.1.1 on non-discrimination but this talks more about impeding access than making access easier. The draft ISO17065 does not offer further clarity at 4.4. In conclusion we feel this is discriminatory but feel ISO65 does not provide clear support for this view. We would appreciate the input of PAC members.
Discussion: Does the situation described above satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC Guide 65
Requested action by the PAC TC:
IOAS would like to request PAC TC to give the opinion on the compliance to ISO/IEC Guide 65 on the situation explained above
Consensus of the PAC TC
8 responses were received with different views detailed as attached. There was no consensus on this issue at this stage.
IOAS would be informed of the result and this issue would be discussed formally in the PAC TC meeting 2012, subject to IOAS request.
PAC member / Comments
CNAS / Please refer to IAF GD5, G 4.1.1, that gives a form of discrimination, such as speeding up or delaying the processing of application, rather than only impeding or inhibiting application of ISO/IEC GUIDE 65-4.1.1. From it, maybe there are many forms of discrimination, so AB should judge whether CB’s manner for processing of application is a form of discrimination.
In my opinion, IOAS ‘s case is a form of discrimination. Also it is a bad manner of competition.
NABCB / In addition to the remarks in the discussion paper about the requirements in Guide 65 and IAF GD 5, the CB would come back with the argument that there is no discrimination - the offer is open to ALL eligible organizations and is not restrictive.
We really don't have a case for raising an issue. In fact so long as there are no requirements for fixed fees with no negotiations allowed, we would have instances where one organization is charged more and another being offered a concessional fee. As long as the mandays are shown to be as needed in the IAF documents we don't have a case.
PAO / The IOAS concern is one for the thinkers.
The situation can be discriminatory. The offer provides a waiver which is essentially a non-payment of the application fee for a given time frame. This would discriminate those that have paid application fees or would pay application fees in the future AFTER the CB has "lifted" the offer of waiver.
However, the CB can look at it NOT at the perspective of ISO Guide 65 but rather look at it at the perspective of a CB offering/marketing its certification services. Hence, the operation/administration of a CB.
The CB may have looked at the situation from a marketing point of view. The CB offers/markets its certification services and offering such services will require some marketing effort. The CB chose as a marketing effort the offer of a waiver of its application fee when prospective clients reply within a certain time frame. It is like a marketing offer in a discount sale for the service(s) offered. If this will be how a CB will "defend" itself of its actuation, does IAF GD5 cover the marketing aspect? Can the CB look at IAF GD5 as a contravention of competition/free market?
HKAS / It will not be acceptable if the CB would speed up the application or make certification easier.
But from the information provided, the CB just offers to waive the application fee for clients of another CB. This is not ethical but is there a requirement to stop that kind of poaching.
Let us look at it in another way.
From time to time, a CB would offer discount or waive the application fee for an applicant. I believe we do NOT consider that to be discriminatory.
So what is the difference between that and offering the discount to a group of potential applicants?
JAB / Guide 65 4.1.1 says that “The policies and procedures … and their administration … shall be administered in a non-discriminatory manner.”
Sending letters to clients is not always regarded as equally ensuring all the clients to access that information.
The practice to waive the application fee should be publicly accessible in order that all potential clients are able to be informed.
CB shall justify that the practice does not lead any discrimination in its application process.
SAI / There is nothing to prevent a CAB offering free certification, let alone waiving a transfer fee. This is a commercial issue not one related to certification or accreditation. I do not believe the Standard prohibits this practice.
EMA / In my opinion, they need to see clause G.4.1.1 of GD5, that establish the Certification bodies shall not practice any form of discrimination such as hidden discrimination by speeding up or delaying the processing of applications.
The CB need to justify why they want waive the application fee and why they did not apply the same procedure for other clients. In other hand they need to justify how are avoiding any possible pressure of this action.
In my opinion is a clear situation of Conflict of Interest.
AACBF / Based on my experience in product certification I am not sure how you would be able to transfer a product certification from one CB to another CB. Currently there are no guidelines for transferring "Product Certifications". I also wonder based on what information the CB would issue a new certificate. Does the CB perform the necessary testing before issuing a new certificate?