How Laboratories Gain Accreditation for a New Testing Method

A new testing method can expand a laboratory’s technical scope, support more reliable infrastructure decisions and open opportunities in public and private-sector projects. Accreditation, however, is not granted simply because a method has been written down or used successfully several times. The laboratory must demonstrate that the method is technically sound, controlled, reproducible and supported by competent staff and suitable equipment.

For an Australian audience, the process is closely associated with NATA accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025. The same principles apply to a road and bridge testing unit such as UP. PPP: define the method, validate its performance, control risks, produce objective evidence and undergo an independent assessment. Whether the work concerns asphalt, soil, concrete, levels or structural components, accreditation protects the credibility of reported results.

Stage Main evidence required Typical decision
Define the method Scope, standard or procedure, intended use Method is suitable for development
Study risks and resources Equipment, staff, safety and environmental controls Laboratory is ready to validate
Validate or verify Precision, bias, range, detection capability and uncertainty Performance is technically acceptable
Implement the system Records, quality control, training and reporting Method operates under controlled conditions
Assess the laboratory Independent review, witnessed testing and corrective action Accreditation scope is granted or amended
Maintain approval Proficiency testing, audits and reviews Competence remains demonstrable

Define The Intended Test Clearly

The first task is to state exactly what the laboratory intends to measure. A description such as “concrete strength testing” is too broad for an accreditation scope. The laboratory should identify the measurand, specimen type, preparation process, equipment, environmental conditions, calculation model and reporting unit. It should also state whether the method is based on an Australian Standard, an international standard, a client specification or an internally developed procedure.

This precision matters in civil construction. A flexural test on a concrete beam, for example, has different loading arrangements, specimen dimensions, curing requirements and calculations from a compressive strength test. A laboratory developing such a capability can consult a practical flexural testing guide while building its own controlled procedure and evidence base.

The intended application should reflect real customer needs. A road authority may require results for pavement acceptance, a contractor may need production control data, and a bridge engineer may need evidence for a structural assessment. In Australia, specifications may refer to standards such as AS 1289 for soil testing, AS 1012 for concrete or AS 2891 for asphalt. The laboratory must identify the exact edition and any project-specific departures before validation begins.

Check Standards, Equipment And Risks

A laboratory should conduct a documented review before spending resources on experiments. This review confirms that the proposed method is current, technically justified and compatible with the laboratory’s facilities. If a standard has been withdrawn, amended or superseded, the procedure must explain which requirements apply and how differences are managed.

Equipment suitability is equally important. Calibration alone does not prove that a machine is fit for a particular test. The laboratory may need to establish load accuracy, displacement measurement, temperature stability, alignment, vibration control or software security. Traceability should link instruments to suitable calibration services, reference materials or recognised measurement standards, including Australia’s National Measurement Institute where relevant.

Safety risks should be assessed alongside technical risks. Testing may involve heavy moulds, high loads, hot bitumen, cutting equipment, pressurised systems or chemical exposure. The controls should align with applicable work health and safety duties in the relevant Australian state or territory. For example, a laboratory serving projects in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane may need controls for manual handling, heat, wet floors and interaction between technicians and mobile plant.

Environmental conditions can influence results. Melbourne’s winter humidity, Brisbane’s heat and moisture, or rapid temperature changes in regional work sites may affect specimen conditioning and equipment performance. The method should define monitoring limits, storage conditions and actions when those limits are exceeded.

Build A Validation And Verification Plan

Validation demonstrates that a new or modified method is fit for its intended purpose. Verification is generally used when an established standard method is introduced into a particular laboratory. The amount of evidence depends on the method’s novelty, complexity, risk and level of standardisation. A laboratory must be able to explain why its chosen study design is sufficient.

A validation plan commonly addresses repeatability, reproducibility, bias, working range, robustness and measurement uncertainty. For quantitative methods, this may require multiple operators, days, instruments or material batches. The laboratory should select representative samples rather than relying only on easy, uniform specimens. Pavement materials can vary significantly between quarries, asphalt plants and recycled-material sources, so the study should cover realistic variation.

Quality control samples provide continuing evidence after the initial study. Control charts, duplicate tests, reference materials, replicate measurements and equipment checks can reveal drift before it affects customer reports. Where no certified reference material exists, the laboratory can justify alternative controls, such as interlaboratory comparison, spiked samples or retained specimens with established historical data.

A method involving subjective observations needs additional safeguards. Clear photographs, decision rules, analyst training and blind assessments can reduce interpretation differences. The validation file should preserve raw observations, calculations, deviations, failed trials and the reasoning behind final acceptance criteria. Removing unsuccessful experiments creates a misleading record and weakens confidence during assessment.

Establish Measurement Uncertainty And Reporting Rules

Measurement uncertainty expresses the range associated with a reported result. It is not a correction for a mistake; it describes the doubt that remains after the test has been performed. The laboratory should identify relevant sources, such as instrument calibration, specimen dimensions, mass, temperature, operator technique, repeatability and calculation assumptions.

The uncertainty evaluation should match the method’s intended use. If a result is compared with a construction limit, the laboratory may need a decision rule explaining how conformity is determined near that limit. Reporting “pass” or “fail” without stating the decision rule can create disputes between a contractor, consultant and asset owner.

Reports should identify the method, sample condition, date, equipment where relevant, deviations, result and units. They should distinguish accredited work from activities outside the approved scope. If a client asks for an opinion or interpretation, the laboratory must define the basis for that statement and ensure the responsible personnel have suitable competence.

Australian procurement often requires clear evidence for payment claims, pavement acceptance and defect investigations. A result that cannot be traced to a controlled method may be challenged long after the field work is complete. That is why sample identification, chain of custody and electronic record controls matter as much as the final numerical result.

Prepare The Quality System And Staff

The technical procedure must operate inside the laboratory’s management system. Document control should ensure that staff use the approved version and that obsolete copies are removed. Records should show who performed each stage, which equipment was used, whether conditions were acceptable and how any nonconforming work was handled.

Competence must be demonstrated rather than assumed from job title or years of experience. A training pathway can include supervised practice, observation, written or practical assessment, review of calculations and periodic reassessment. Staff who collect field samples may need separate authorisation from those who operate laboratory equipment or approve reports.

Before seeking assessment, the laboratory should run the method as a normal service. This trial period may reveal practical problems with turnaround times, specimen storage, data transfer, consumable supply or customer instructions. A unit serving congested Australian cities may also need a plan for traffic delays, weekend access restrictions and temperature-sensitive samples transported from distant sites.

Evidence That Strengthens The Application

Internal audits should test the whole process, from customer request and sample receipt to result approval and report issue. Management review should consider complaints, quality-control trends, proficiency testing, workload, risks and resource needs. These activities demonstrate that the method is embedded rather than prepared only for an assessor’s visit.

Complete Assessment And Maintain Recognition

The application is usually made to the laboratory’s accreditation body as a request for a new or extended technical scope. In Australia, this commonly involves NATA reviewing the method against ISO/IEC 17025 and relevant technical requirements. The assessor may examine records, interview staff, inspect equipment, review uncertainty calculations and witness the test being performed.

An assessment does not end when an observation is raised. The laboratory must analyse the cause, correct the immediate issue and provide evidence that the corrective action is effective. For example, replacing an unclear form may solve a documentation problem, but a recurring transcription error may require software controls, retraining and a review of previous reports.

The final scope should describe the method precisely enough that customers understand what is accredited. It may include material type, test principle, measurement range, specimen dimensions or field conditions. Scope wording should avoid implying capability beyond what the validation supports.

Accreditation remains an active responsibility. Proficiency testing or interlaboratory comparisons, internal audits, equipment checks, staff reassessments and periodic review of standards help maintain confidence. If the method changes significantly, the laboratory may need additional verification and notification to the accreditation body.

For UP. PPP and similar infrastructure laboratories, a disciplined scope-extension process connects technical measurement with safer roads, bridges, drainage assets and pedestrian facilities. Australian clients can apply the same expectations when selecting a laboratory: ask whether the exact method is within scope, whether reports identify deviations, and whether the laboratory can explain its quality controls.

Cost planning should include staff time, calibration, reference materials, proficiency testing, assessor fees, travel and possible corrective work. A published laboratory fees resource can help organisations anticipate the commercial side of testing services, while the technical budget should also allow time for method development and ongoing competence.

When the evidence is complete, submit the scope-extension application, make staff and records available for assessment, and respond to findings with objective proof. A carefully validated method can then move from experimental capability to trusted accredited service, giving project owners confidence in decisions that affect construction quality, public safety and long-term asset performance.