European Federation of National Associations of

Measurement, Testing and Analytical Laboratories

Technical Report No. 1/2000

Technical Report
May 2000

Cost of
accreditation
 European Federation of National Associations of
Measurement, Testing and Analytical Laboratories

EL/11-01/00/363

COST OF ACCREDITATION

0. Qualifying remark

This Technical Report is the result of an inquiry performed by EUROLAB among its
members in several European countries. Recognizing that the statistical basis of this inquiry
is rather small, that the results are therefore by no means representative and that the
situation might have changed in some countries in the meantime, EUROLAB nevertheless
decided to publish this technical report which has been discussed in the Permanent Liaison
Group (PLG) of EA and EUROLAB because it provides an overview on the cost situation in
accreditation which is of high importance for European laboratories. EUROLAB is ready to
withdraw this report as soon as more reliable data are available.

1. Introduction

The cost for accreditation has been the issue for discussion since the system for
accreditation was introduced. It is of course natural that customers of a service try to
minimise the price they have to pay, while on the other hand the provider of the service is
trying to maximise his profit. Even though this is a simplification it is true in most business
relations and a ”correct” price of the service provided is reached through competition and the
balance between supply and demand.
This is however not the situation when looking at accreditation. In practice most accreditation
bodies have a national monopoly and the laboratories (the customers) can not go to another
accreditation body. On the other hand most accreditation bodies are not-for-profit
organisations. The fact that the accreditation body, as provider, in most situation are
checking if the laboratories, as customers, are fulfilling requirements which are set up in
international co-operation, is a rather unique situation in a customer/provider relationship.
Since accreditation in many situation is required from authorities and purchasers it is really
not possible for laboratories to just exclude accreditation. On the other hand laboratories will,
if possible, try to find other solutions, e.g. ISO 9000 certification, if the costs are too high. All
this is affecting the costs for accreditation and it is probably therefore there is an ongoing
discussion about the costs for accreditation between accreditors and laboratories.
The cost for accreditation is an important issue for European laboratories since they have to
act on a competitive measurement, testing and analytical market of today where there are
competitors in regions where the demands for accreditation etc. from e.g. authorities are not
such a heavy burden as within the European union. Also within the union the cost for
accreditation is varying. It is therefore important that the European accreditation bodies and
their European cooperation are participating in the work to increase the cost effectiveness of
accreditation. There have been several occasions where this has been discussed, e.g. [1-4].
Also the Commission has recognised the matter as important and it is stated in CERTIF
97/4-EN Rev 2 [5] ”Accreditation services should be offered with no unreasonable financial
burden to economic operators”.
To get an overview over the cost situation in Europe EUROLAB has investigated the cost for
accreditation by distributing an enquiry to some of its members. The result of that
investigation is presented in this report. It must be stressed that the report is just an overview
and there may be things to be questioned when looking into details. The report is only

Technical Report 1/2000 - Cost of accreditation 2-7

dealing with the direct costs that are paid by laboratories to the national accreditation body.
Other costs in connection with the quality assurance activities are not included.
In this report only the direct costs for accreditation are discussed. There of course additional
costs which is connected to quality assurances activities and accreditation. But parts of the
activities connected to these costs must the laboratories perform anyway whether they are
accredited or not since the activities are necessary to set up a functioning quality assurance
system.

2. Investigation

The investigation was made with a questionnaire developed by EUROLAB France as a

basis.
The answering laboratories sent their answers to the EUROLAB Secretariat. The answers
were evaluated and some answers were excluded due to probable misunderstandings of the
questions. In some cases only parts of the answers were excluded. Therefore the sum of the
answering laboratories will not always end up at the same number for different questions.

3. Result

3.1 Miscellaneous
Answers were received from 11 European countries. In total 64 answers were received. The
size of the answering laboratories varied between 5 to 1000 employees. An estimated
median was 50 employees. 29 of the laboratories had 1 person involved in direct
management while 35 had more than one person involved in such activities. The number of
persons performing test or calibration in the answering laboratories are shown in table 1.
The number of test reports or calibration certificates issued per year in the answering
laboratories are shown in table 2. The scope of accreditation for the answering laboratories
are shown in table 3. The cost for assessor per day in each of the answering countries are
shown in table 4.

Number of Number of
persons laboratories
1 5
2,3 12
4,5 9
n>5 33
Table 1. Persons performing tests or calibrations in the laboratories

Number of test Number of

reports / calibration answering
certificates laboratories
n≤50 5
50<n≤100 11
100<n≤500 18
n>500 33
Table 2. Number of test reports or calibration certificates issued per year

Scope of accreditation Number of

Technical Report 1/2000 - Cost of accreditation 3-7

 answers
Electrical safety 23
Electromagnetic compatibility 24
Toys 12
Calibration: dimensional 26
metrology
Other 6
Table 3. Scope of accreditation in the answering laboratories.

Country No of Cost for Assessor/day

Answers (ECU)
Austria 4 600-700
Belgium 2 600
Denmark 7 500-1000
Finland 3 1000
France 9 900
Germany 6 800-1000
Italy 12 not available
Portugal 8 260
Spain 8 500-700
Sweden 2 1000
Netherlands 3 900
64 800
Table 4. The cost for assessor per day in each of the countries.

3.2 Initial assessment

For the initial assessment the following was shown by the questionnaire; the duration of the
initial assessment is usually 2 days and the number of assessors are 2 or 3. The duration of
the initial assessment for the answering laboratories is shown in table 5. The number of
assessors during the initial assessment for the answering laboratories is shown in table 6.

Number of Number of
days answers
n≤1 14
1<n≤2 35
n>2 16

Table 5. Duration of the initial assessment.

Number of Number of
assessors answers
1 2
2 39
3 18
4 7
5 1
Table 6. Number of assessors on the initial assessment

Technical Report 1/2000 - Cost of accreditation 4-7

3.3 Surveillance audits
For 41 laboratories the frequency of the surveillance audits was once a year and for 15 the
frequency was every 6 month. 10 laboratories had other frequencies on the surveillance
audits. The duration of the surveillance audits for the answering laboratories are shown in
table 7. The number of assessors during surveillance audits for the answering laboratories
are shown in table 8.

Duration Number of
in days answers
n≤0.5 3
0.5<n≤1 29
1<n≤2 22
n>2 4
Table 7. The duration of the surveillance audits

Number of Number of
assessors answers
1 or 2 43
3 13
4 1
n>4 1
Table 8. Number of assessors during surveillance audits

3.4 Reassessment audits

The frequency of the reassessment audits was 5 years for 8 laboratories, 4 years for 9
laboratories and 3 years for 17 answering laboratories. Two laboratories had other
reassessment audit frequency. The duration of Reassessment audits for the answering
laboratories is shown in table 9. The number of assessors during reassessment audits for
the answering laboratories is shown in table 10.

Duration Number of
answers
n≤0.5 0
0.5<n≤1 14
1<n≤2 22
n>2 4
Table 9. Duration of reassessment audits

Number of Number of
assessors answers
1,2 23
3 13
4 3
n>4 1
Table 10. Number of assessors for reassessment audits

3.5 Accreditation costs

The first registration costs varies considerable over Europe. The lowest is 200 ECU and the
highest is 25000 ECU. 2500 ECU is an estimate of the median value.

Technical Report 1/2000 - Cost of accreditation 5-7

The total cost for the initial assessment varies between 1000 and 25000 and 5000 is
estimated median value. The total costs for a surveillance audit is varying between 350 and
24000 ECU with a median of about 3000 ECU. Reassessment audits cost between 450 and
15000 ECU and the median is about 3000. The annual fees varies between 300 and 8500
with a median of 1000.

4. Comments and discussion

The investigation on which this report is based should be considered just as an overview.
There are several sources of errors or misunderstandings in an investigation like this, e.g.
there seem to have been some confusion whether the cost for an assessor per hour should
include travels costs or not. The size of the public funding may influence the fees for
accreditation. In this enquiry it has not been possible to find out the size of the public funding
to the different accreditation bodies and how it influences the fees.
There is a tendency that the cost for an assessor is increasing the further north one goes. It
may be that the travel costs in countries in the northern part of Europe are higher than in
central Europe. It should also be acknowledge that there are different price levels in different
countries in Europe.
There are different structures for the fees for accreditation. In some countries the first
registration fee is rather high while the cost for an assessor is lower and vice versa. The
differences in the fee structure makes the European accreditation bodies fee systems less
transparent The involvement of authorities and especially funding received from ministries
etc. can affect the picture.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The most significant trends found in the investigations are Apart from the figures above, the
following trends were also found:
1) The laboratories are concerned of their costs for accreditation. This has been shown in
accompanying letters and telephone calls in connection with the investigation.
2) There are countries where the laboratories do not have the possibility to distinguish
between the different parts of the fee they are paying.
3) Even though the size, the activities and the scope accreditation of the answering
laboratories are differing very much, it seems that the number of assessors and the number
of days spent during the assessment is rather standardised in some cases.
The accreditation bodies must be aware of the costs and try to minimise the costs in the
assessment process. One way to do so is to avoid multiple assessment of bodies carrying
out different assessment activities. This is also mentioned in CERTIF 97/4-EN Rev2 [5]. The
possibility to simultaneous implement different quality management systems should be
encourage, e.g. EN 45000 and GLP [6]. Other ways of evaluating laboratories than visiting
them could be considered, e.g. results of participation in laboratory intercomparisons. It is
however important to stress that the quality of the assessment should not be affected by the
suggested changes.
The issue of cost of accreditation is a very important question for the laboratories and it is a
real need to continue of the discussion going on between laboratories and accreditors,
shown in [1]. The issue is not only a question for laboratories and accreditors but also for
providers of other quality management systems e.g. ISO 9000 and GLP as well as the
national authorities and the Commission, they all have to be included in the discussion.

Technical Report 1/2000 - Cost of accreditation 6-7

The investigation pointed to issues where there are reasons to especially continue the
discussion, e.g. the number of assessors during assessments and the frequency of
surveillance audits and reassessment audits. The length of such assessments could also be
discussed.
It is important to increase the transparency of the fee structure in European accreditation
and therefore should the discussion about the fee structure continue.

6. References

[1] EUROLAB Report 2/97, ”Improving cost effectiveness in the assessment of laboratories”
Copenhagen, September 10, 1997, Joint EAL/EUROLAB Workshop in cooperation with
EURACHEM
[2] Quality Management and Assurance in Testing Laboratories”, 1st EUROLAB Symposium,
Proceedings, Strasbourg, France, January 28-30, 1992.
[3] ”Testing for the Years 2000”, 2nd EUROLAB Symposium, Proceedings, Florence, Italy,
April 25-27, 1994.
[4] ”Testing and analysis for industrial competitiveness and sustainable development”, 3rd
EUROLAB Symposium, Proceedings, Berlin, Germany, June 5-7, 1996
[5] CERTIF 97/4 EN-Rev 2. ”Accreditation and the Community’s Policy in the Field of
Conformity Assessment”, European Commission DGIII, Brussels, 15 December 1997.
[6] EUROLAB Report 3/96, ”Quality Assurance According to EN45001 and OECD GLP, a
Guide to Simultaneous Implementation”

Technical Report 1/2000 - Cost of accreditation 7-7