What is the starting point of this case?
A competent inspection service, accredited for several years, that has to prove its impartiality again under a new standard. This is a composite case: it brings together situations met in inspection services. The group, its headcount and its timeline are fictitious and given for illustration.
The group is based in the Mohammedia industrial zone, near Casablanca. One subsidiary sells, installs and maintains overhead cranes and hoists; another maintains boilers and tanks. The inspection service, about ten people, inspects the lifting equipment and pressure equipment of the group’s plants and, for a few years now, that of outside clients, several of whom also buy from the maintenance subsidiary.
The service is accredited by SEMAC (Service marocain d’accréditation), Morocco’s accreditation service under the Ministry of Industry and Trade, against NM ISO/IEC 17020, 2012 edition, as Type C for both its fields. It is a common profile: the SEMAC list of October 2026 shows seven active Type C accreditations and five mixed A/C, out of fourteen.
The gap diagnosis against ISO/IEC 17020:2026, carried out in the office and on two inspections in progress, found the following:
What existed | What was missing under the 2026 edition |
|---|---|
Organisation chart separating inspection from maintenance | Written justification of the classification, field by field |
Impartiality analysis written for the initial application | Register kept up to date, with monitoring indicators and review |
Commitments signed on hiring | Up-to-date commitments, annual declaration of interests |
Inspectors qualified on CVs and training | Documented competence management process; supervision that conditions authorisation |
Calculation spreadsheets for pressure equipment | Validation of the spreadsheets, protected formulas, version control |
Photos and measurements taken on a tablet | Traceability of changes, retention of original files, instruments identified per inspection |
Non-destructive testing given to a laboratory | Evaluation and monitoring of the provider, information to the client |
A single “complaints and appeals” procedure | Two separate processes, made available to the public |
Group system certified to ISO 9001 (option B) | Direct demonstration that clause 8 is covered, as options A and B disappear |
The requirements in the right-hand column follow note INS INF 35 from Cofrac, the French accreditation body, which cross-references the 2012 and 2026 editions. They give one reading of it: the text of the standard, a paid document, prevails.
Type C yesterday, Type non-A tomorrow: what really changes?
The name of the category, not the logic. According to Cofrac, the 2026 edition merges Types B and C into a Type non-A aligned with the former Type C requirements, and leaves Type A unchanged in substance. For this service, the independence gap is therefore small. The effort lies elsewhere: the Singapore Accreditation Council notes that the new edition places a heavier emphasis on how risks to impartiality are actually managed.
Management first wanted to aim for Type A for pressure equipment, on the grounds that no company in the group manufactures it. The analysis ruled this out: the service inspects equipment that its own group owns and operates, and a subsidiary maintains it. That link is enough to rule out the independence of a third-party body. Both fields were classified non-A, with a one-page justification note each, attached to the independence criteria form AI 312 required by document AI 411.
The detailed criteria for each type are set out in the annexes of the standard. The wording SEMAC will use in its scopes after the transition has not been published yet: its October 2026 list still classifies bodies as Type A, C or A/C.
How was the impartiality register rebuilt?
By starting from the group’s actual links, field by field, and giving each risk a measure and a monitored indicator. The register fits on one page per field; here is the lifting page:
Risk | Measure | Indicator | Review |
|---|---|---|---|
Inspecting an overhead crane installed or maintained by the group’s subsidiary | No inspector from maintenance inspects equipment they have maintained; sign-off by a manager with no link to the subsidiary | Share of inspections on equipment maintained by the group; findings raised on that equipment | Quarterly |
Pressure from a group plant to put equipment back into service | Conformity decision reserved for the signatory; no reporting line to production | Number of requests for exemptions and their outcome | Management review |
Outside client that also buys maintenance from the group | Separate inspection and maintenance offers; written information to the client on the group’s links | Clients concerned, related complaints | Annual |
Inspector recruited from a client | Cooling-off period before inspecting that client; declaration of links | Declarations up to date | Annual |
Report challenged by a major client | Written reason for any change, approval by a second signatory | Amended reports and reasons | Management review |
Two rules changed day-to-day work. Maintenance technicians seconded to the inspection service during peaks no longer inspect group equipment. And the share of inspections carried out on equipment maintained by the subsidiary is presented at every management review: it is the indicator the auditor asked for first during the mock audit.
Which technical gaps took the most work?
Competence, data and the non-destructive testing provider, in that order.
Competence. The service wrote qualification criteria for each field, a formal authorisation to inspect and to sign, and annual on-site supervision for each inspector. According to Cofrac, the 2026 edition requires supervision results to be taken into account to maintain authorisations: an unfavourable supervision now suspends the authorisation until a new evaluation. Inspectors’ technical training falls within our plant, lifting and handling training domain.
Data. The inventory found seven calculation spreadsheets and one data-entry app on tablets. Each tool received a validation file, a locked version and protected formulas. The app now records the identifier of the measuring instruments used for each inspection, and original photos are kept unedited. This paid off sooner than expected: a reference pressure gauge was found out of tolerance at calibration. The service traced the reports concerned within an hour, assessed the effect on the conclusions and redid two inspections, as the 2026 edition provides for a nonconformity found after the event.
The provider. The non-destructive testing laboratory was evaluated on its accredited scope, turnaround times and complaints, with an annual follow-up. Offers to outside clients now state that this provider is used, and the client may refuse it. How to check a laboratory’s scope is described on our ISO/IEC 17025 laboratory accreditation page.
How was the transition planned with SEMAC?
On the next surveillance, not the last one. Under procedure A 110.03, surveillance assessments follow every fifteen months and the nonconformities they raise must be closed within six weeks. In this case, the next surveillance fell in the second half of 2027 and the following one at the end of 2028: management chose the first, keeping the second as a safety net before the 31 March 2029 deadline.
Period (fictitious) | Step | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
Quarter 1 | Standard purchased, team set up, gap analysis | Prioritised table of gaps |
Quarter 2 | Non-A classification, impartiality register, risks and opportunities analysis | Classification notes, register, analysis |
Quarter 3 | Procedures, validated tools, provider evaluated, training | Revised procedures, validation files |
Quarter 4 | Independent internal audit, management review, letter to SEMAC | Audit report, minutes, written request |
SEMAC surveillance | Assessment against the 2026 edition | Findings closed within the deadlines |
As of 6 November 2026, SEMAC has not published its transition policy (end date, form of assessments) on the ministry website. Other accreditation bodies have set their date: 27 March 2029 for SAC and Cofrac, 30 March 2029 for INAB. The fictitious schedule above assumes an assessment against the 2026 edition during a surveillance visit; management asked SEMAC in writing which arrangement it will apply.
What lessons for an in-house inspection service?
What services that succeed in their transition take away:
The requirements are detailed in our ISO/IEC 17020:2026 inspection body guide, the method in the ISO/IEC 17020:2026 gap analysis, and the accreditation bodies’ dates in the ISO/IEC 17020:2026 transition timeline. The context of industrial groups is covered on our industry and energy sector page.