ISO/IEC 17025 clause 7.1: review customer requests before accepting work
Clause 7.1 requires a procedure for reviewing requests, tenders and contracts so the laboratory and customer understand and accept the work. The review must establish defined requirements, suitable capability and resources, appropriate methods and controlled external provision. It is a technical acceptance decision, not only a price approval.
What clause 7.1 requires in practice
Clause 7.1 asks the laboratory to decide, before work starts, whether it should say yes and on what terms. A documented procedure must make sure the customer's requirements are defined and understood, that the laboratory holds the ability and the means to deliver on them, that any use of an external provider is controlled and agreed, and that a suitable method has been chosen.
Several more points sit inside the clause. The customer is told if the requested method looks inappropriate or out of date. When a pass-or-fail style statement is wanted, the specification and the rule for deciding conformity are defined and, unless built into the specification, agreed. Differences between request and contract are settled first, and deviations from the contract are reported to the customer. If a contract changes after work begins, the review is repeated and affected staff are told. The laboratory cooperates with customers on clarification and on watching progress. Records of reviews and relevant discussions are kept.
Establish the requested service and capability
Clarify the item, intended activity, method, reporting needs and relevant specifications. Check whether the laboratory can meet them with its available competence, facilities, equipment and other resources. Routine or internal-customer reviews may be simplified, but simplification must not conceal an unresolved requirement.
When an external provider will perform specific laboratory activities, apply clause 6.6, advise the customer of those activities and obtain approval. Do not wait until the final report to disclose an arrangement that should have been agreed at acceptance.
Cooperate while preserving appropriate controls
The laboratory must cooperate in clarifying requests and monitoring performance in relation to the work. Appropriate cooperation may involve witnessing relevant activities or preparing items for customer verification. Manage that access consistently with confidentiality, safety and the integrity of laboratory operations; examples in the standard are not a requirement for unlimited customer access.
Retain review records, significant changes and relevant discussions about requirements or results. A short, clear review record linked to an order can be more useful than a lengthy form whose answers were copied from the previous job.
Why clause 7.1 matters to the laboratory
Most expensive laboratory problems start with a request that was accepted too quickly. A job taken on without checking the method, the specification or the laboratory's own capacity can end in a result the customer cannot use, a repeated test, or an argument about what was promised. A careful review costs minutes at the front and protects reputation at the back. It also gives the laboratory a clear footing when a customer later asks for a different conclusion than the one the data support. Contract review is also where commercial and technical staff learn to work from the same facts, which reduces friction inside the organisation as well as with customers.
How to implement clause 7.1
Aim for a review that is short enough to be done every time and specific enough to catch real problems. Pilot the revised review on a handful of live enquiries before rolling it out, and ask the people using it what slowed them down.
- List the questions every request must answer: item, activity, method, specification, reporting needs, deadline and any external work.
- Assign the technical check to a person who knows capability and capacity, and give sales or administrative staff a way to refer questions to them.
- Create a simplified route for routine and internal customers, with a clear rule for when a request must leave that route.
- Add a prompt for conformity statements: which specification, and which decision rule, agreed before testing.
- Record changes after acceptance in the same place as the original review, and notify the people doing the work.
- Keep notes of significant customer conversations, linked to the order.
- Sample completed orders for consistency between the request, the review and the issued report.
Evidence an assessor expects for clause 7.1
An assessor will look for proof that the review happened before the work and that it was more than a signature. Typical evidence includes review records linked to orders, showing who judged capability and what was decided; correspondence recording agreement on decision rules or on external providers; records of changes made mid-job and how affected staff were told; and notes of customer discussions about requirements or results. Observations help as well: staff at the order desk who can explain what they do when a requested method looks unsuitable, and an interview with a technical reviewer about a recent difficult request. Examples where the laboratory declined or renegotiated work are often more convincing than a file of identical approvals.
Two illustrative contract-review decisions
A construction customer requests a pass/fail statement but supplies only a sample and project name. The laboratory clarifies the applicable specification, method and decision rule before accepting the requested conclusion. It does not infer the acceptance limit from a previous project.
A calibration laboratory cannot perform one part of a job because equipment is unexpectedly unavailable. It evaluates a suitable external provider, explains the specific work to the customer and obtains approval. It reviews reporting and delivery implications rather than quietly changing the service route.
Common weaknesses
Avoid sales acceptance without technical review, undocumented changes agreed by phone, a blanket customer waiver for unsuitable methods, and unapproved external work. Also avoid assuming that a longstanding customer always wants the same deliverable. A changed regulatory purpose or specification can alter the required service even when the item looks familiar.
Turn this requirement into reliable laboratory practice
Sterling can help strengthen the technical questions in your enquiry and quotation process. Bring a recent complex request to a free consultation to identify decisions that should be resolved before your laboratory commits to delivery.
Build the team's understanding through ISO/IEC 17025 Awareness. Discuss the relevant scope, employee learning and agreed access to Effivity ISO & GRC automation software with Sterling; laboratory technical decisions remain with competent, authorised personnel.
ISO/IEC 17025 requirements hub · Technical process overview · External-provider controls · Conformity statements
Frequently asked questions
Can routine internal work use a simplified review?
Yes. The standard recognises simplified review for routine or internal customers, but requirements, capability and relevant technical decisions still need to be adequately established.
Must every decision rule be separately agreed with the customer?
The selected rule must be communicated and agreed unless it is inherent in the requested specification or standard. The specification and rule must still be clearly defined.
What happens when a customer changes the request after testing starts?
Repeat the contract review, resolve technical and commercial effects and communicate the amendment to affected personnel. Retain records of the significant change and relevant discussion.
Control differences, deviations and later changes
Resolve differences between the initial request or tender and the contract before laboratory activities begin. The contract must be acceptable to both parties, and customer-requested deviations must not compromise laboratory integrity or result validity. Customer agreement is not permission to produce technically invalid work.
Inform the customer of deviations from the contract. If the contract changes after work starts, repeat the review and communicate amendments to affected personnel. Consider work already performed, sample suitability, method changes and reporting consequences rather than simply updating the commercial order.