>>I find it incredible that you have A2LA (or NVLAP) registration without >>already having had your equipment calibrated by a NIST or similar >>calibration facility. If a test equipment manufacturer's "wet finger" >>cal report is good enough, I'd have to question the integrity of any >>test report when making a statement of compliance, particularly when the >>measurement goes close to the limit, or when a tight measurement >>uncertainty is quoted.
>I think a clarification is necessary here. I was requesting >any information on A2LA or NVLAP accredited calibration labs, NOT NIST >traceable labs. Of course I use NIST traceable calibrations! Just because >a lab is NIST traceable does not mean it is A2LA or NVLAP accredited. >NIST traceability is only a part of being accredited. > >Our EMC lab is pursuing acreditation at the current time. As a part of that, >both A2LA and NVLAP are moving towards requiring the use of accredited >calibration labs. Because of this, we are searching for any ACCREDITED >calibration labs. FYI, I have a memo from James L. Cigler, Chief, Laboratory Accreditation Program, NIST. A quote from his memo; "All calibration and testing laboroatories desiring to be accredited by NVLAP after December 1, 1996, must demonstrate compliance with these traceability requirements. All calibration and testing laboratories currently accredited by NVLAP must demonstrate compliance with these traceability requirements by end December 1997." The traceability referenced in the memo refers to calibration of test equipment. When we select cal houses for our test equipment we look for compliance to MIL-STD-45662A (Calibration System Requirements) which will address NVLAP requirements. Dave Clement Motorola ISG
