GIDEP

[CalLabSolutions]

The procedure you used and the specs the units was tested to are very important part of the calibration.  I think, just as important as traceability of the measurement. To me you have to have a fully documented audit trail. 

Most labs just put on their certificates of calibration  "Manufacturer's Procedure", "Manufacturer's Spec".  But that tells me nothing... What exact manual did you use? What exact specifications spec?

We have a customer that took this seriously.  We built a custom solution for them that listed the specific documents used on the certificate of calibration.  It showed the technician the exact manual they had to get, and the process they had to follow to complete the calibration.  All the Work Instructions, manuals and the change history was stored in the database.  Yes a complete audit trail of the work from door to door.

Mike

P.S. Edison MUDCAT also does an excellent job of creating a document trail.

[John Treekiller]

With the defense of skidaddle in full swing in another thread and continued references to GIDEP procedures.  I have the following:
skidaddle, Is your Calibration Lab certified to ISO 17025?  It is okay to quote from the ISO but if your company makes no reference to being ISO Certified or claim to be ISO Complient insisting that it be followed is not what is in their best interest.
As has been stated before, many GIDEP procedures are not fully calibrating every parameter of the test instrument.  Quite a few do much more, I previously worked for a major manufacturer's service lab and an Air Force Calibration Lab and there were many test points we calibrated for the AF Lab that were not a requirement for the manufacturer.  This was mostly on handheld meters and the like but there are many instances where the AF CTOs are overkill.  And many more that should be expanded.  That's not an argument, that's a fact.
If you read ISO 17025, there is also a section where the Calibration Lab is to provide as found and as left data when requested by the customer.  Many customers do not require this but if you really want to provide your customer a comprehensive report on the calibration you will utilize this procedure.  If you are only providing your customer with a sticker or the Report of Calibration without data you may have to re-think your position as a Calibration Lab.  Although it also depends on your communication with your customer and understanding their requirements and the type of calibration you're providing for them.
skidaddle, if you have a problem with any of this, you know where I work and probably have my phone and e-mail; so let me know.

[CalDude]

I will have to agree. In addition to ISO 17025 is ANSI Z540.3.  Both require that the lab communicate with the customer the calibration procedures and/or test points. Both require a master document list and that the test data be available upon request. Unfortunately, far too many labs that are accredited do not provide this data upon request, nor do the provide traceable information of their standards on their calibration certificate. And to think that they somehow became A2LA accredited? Does someone have a big check going to an offshore account for that audit?

[djshepp21]

I will have to agree. In addition to ISO 17025 is ANSI Z540.3.  Both require that the lab communicate with the customer the calibration procedures and/or test points. Both require a master document list and that the test data be available upon request. Unfortunately, far too many labs that are accredited do not provide this data upon request, nor do the provide traceable information of their standards on their calibration certificate. And to think that they somehow became A2LA accredited? Does someone have a big check going to an offshore account for that audit?

CalDude -- Don't know why you had to go into detail about cal house's and A2LA accreditation on a thread about GIDEP.  Get your head out of the region in which you evacuate your bowels.

Seriously though...Cal Houses are there to perform work for paying customers.  Your integrity should kick in at some point and say "we need to do the best job we can for our customers".  If your customer has expressed their acceptance of your procedures and calibration check points, that's ok.  If you have not received that consent, you should be checking to manufacturers specifications using a procedure that may or may not have been a GIDEP procedure AND that was validated/approved by management or a designated representative (ANSI Z540.3, ISO 10012, ISO 17025, or any other applicable reference one wants to throw in there).

[HarryBee]

I am sure the lack of communication between customer and lab was the original issue with the OP.  I have done my fair share of working in sticker shops and know well what OP is refering to. I"m sure that the problem is the fact that many commercial labs like using the GIDEP procedures because they can claim ignorance on the validity of the procedure, cut corners and make more money.
If anyone doubts the last thing I said then you would only do so under the intent to cover your own butts. I am placing my vote that GIDEP procedures should be validated for accuracy. I wrote those procedures for the USAF.  Also is the fact that we all know that these procedures are continuously a work in progress as people from the field constantly submit corrections.  Another problem is that many of the customers don't care what procedure you use if you aren't applying a limitation.  So you place a 33K procedure into the "procedure used" block and then give it a full calibration (this is common practice, believe me).  At the end of the day the customer gets a full calibration sticker while parameters aren't verified and it's all fine and dandy because.... The customer agreed to it.
To that I say, the customers are not the "experts" in this matter, WE ARE. So if anyone is fine with slipping one by the customer by taking advantage of their ignorance, then good on you.  I will strive to meet my customers' expectations and take it as a personal responsibility to ensure the customers' needs are met. 
To the OP: you have good ideas but my advice is to get your head straight and stop ranting.  Ranting even if you are correct is still.. just... ranting.  Get another job if you are unhappy and leave 3rd party sweat shops alone.  There are plenty of cal-techs out there that would love to punch a time clock and get paid by pretending to calibrate stuff.  I use to be angry like you but I moved on to better things and could not be happier in my career and life.
If anyone doubts the last thing I said then you would only do so under the intent to cover your own butts. I am placing my vote that GIDEP procedures should be validated for accuracy. I wrote those procedures for the USAF.  also is the fact that we all know that these procedures are continuously

[djshepp21]

Seriously...check out AFTO 33K3-4-3576-1 for the Tektronix DSO 70404.  Where is the Delta Time Measurement Accuracy?  Delay Between Channels?  Channel-to-Channel Isolation?  The Air Force may not need it for their applications, but if your customer is using the oscilloscope to verify performance of chipsets in manufacturing applications, those functions are critical and should be tested.

How about the Mahr Federal CX1?  The USAF downgraded the manufacturers specifications in 33K6-4-3445-1 (see step 3.7).  They don't even test the Measuring Force or perform the Repeatability tests.

I could go on all day about GIDEP procedures and why you should not use them for accuracies.  But, as a good resource for calibration guides (techniques, equipment setups, etc.) I have no complaints.

[spanishfly25]

GIDEP procedures are great for field calibrations. maybe they are lacking a little for testing instruments to the fullest, or for a standards lab, but for general equipment use in the field, they are good

[HarryBee]

*Sighs*  If the procedure is not calibrating to full mfr's specs and you aren't placing a limitation on the equipment, then GIDEP procedures are great for equipment that does not recieve a calibration certificate at the end.  I thought we already ironed this one out?  lol.