«CIPM MRA-D-05 Version 1.6 Measurement comparisons in the context of the CIPM MRA CIPM MRA-D-05 Contents 1. Background 1.1. On the CIPM MRA 2. ...»
accompanied by a statement that the control and comment procedure has been completed, will be sent by the RMO TC Chair to the KCDB Office for publication in the KCDB. Those CCs that wish to discuss RMO supplementary comparison reports and formally approve them at the meetings of their relevant CC working groups may do so as an alternative.
To be used as support for CMCs the Final Reports should be published in the KCDB.
8. Publication of comparisons in the KCDB Measurement comparison reports should be written to reflect the experiment that was actually performed, including summary results from all participants. These reports should be accessible from the online Key Comparison Database, but the graphs and tables of equivalence explicitly shown should include results only from signatory NMIs and DIs. The results for non-signatory participants should be considered as evidence of metrological competence for any future CMC submissions in the event that the laboratory becomes a signatory to the CIPM MRA. Note that this would not apply to laboratories participating in a measurement comparison under less stringent rules than the signatory laboratories (e.g. as a ‘pilot study’ participant for a measurement comparison in chemistry).
The comparison Final Reports for publication must be sent in portable document format (pdf) to the corresponding Consultative Committee’s executive secretary and, after approval, to the KCDB Office, together with a clear statement that the report is approved by the RMO and/or the CC. It should be accompanied by a short
in Word format that is also included in the Final Report. For key comparisons, it should also be accompanied by an EXCEL spreadsheet file containing the data and graphs to be published in the KCDB.
It is recommended that the Final Reports of all comparisons are published in a technical journal such as the Technical Supplement of Metrologia, or any other publicly available publication.
9. Monitoring the impact of comparison results The chain of responsibility to ensure that CMC claims made by an NMI are consistent
with the results obtained in key and supplementary comparisons is identified as follows:
1. The NMI making the CMC claim has primary and principal responsibility.
2. Through its technical committees/working groups, the RMO should monitor the impact of key and supplementary comparison results on CMC claims for its member NMIs.
3. The Consultative Committee working groups on CMCs are intended to:
• provide guidance on the range of CMCs supported by particular key and supplementary comparisons;
• identify areas where additional key and supplementary comparisons are needed;
• coordinate the review of existing CMCs in the context of new results of key and supplementary comparisons.
The procedure for monitoring the impact of comparisons is as follows:
1. After Draft B is approved, if the NMI detects a discrepancy between the published CMC and the result of a comparison, the NMI should send a communication to the corresponding RMO technical committee and to the chair of the RMO technical committee/working group responsible for approval of NMI quality management systems.
If the pilot institute or any other participant detects the discrepancy between the results of a laboratory in a comparison and published CMCs, the pilot institute should write to the NMI alerting them to any potential problems in their results for the comparison, copying to the NMI’s RMO technical committee and the chair of the RMO technical committee/working group responsible for approval of NMI quality management systems.
In both cases, the communication should also be copied to the Consultative Committee working group on CMCs with jurisdiction over the comparison, the JCRB and the President of the Consultative Committee.
plan fails to resolve the problems within six months, the RMO should request from the JCRB the temporary removal of the CMCs from the KCDB.
3. The RMO should request from the JCRB the reinstatement of temporarily removed CMCs once the corrective action has been implemented.
4. The Consultative Committee should inform the CIPM of the incident as part of its annual report.
10. Related documents CIPM MRA – Mutual recognition of national measurement standards and of calibration and measurement certificates issued by national metrology institutes, Paris, 14 October 1999.
CIPM MRA Technical Supplement revised in October 2003.
CIPM MRA-D-04 - Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the context of the CIPM MRA.