Is Dual Forensic Accreditation Right for Your Forensic Lab?

Forensic Advantage
Jul 15
4 min read

Evaluate whether dual forensic accreditation suits your laboratory. Learn the benefits, constraints, and implementation steps.

Examining the rationale, obligations, and practical approaches to maintaining both ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17020 accreditations

The Rationale for Considering Dual Forensic Accreditation

Forensic institutions serve a critical function within the broader judicial framework, furnishing analyses and expert determinations that frequently influence both investigative directions and courtroom outcomes. As such, the rigor and impartiality of these organizations warrant close scrutiny. Laboratories primarily engaged in analytical examinations have historically sought accreditation under ISO/IEC 17025, which establishes requirements concerning measurement of traceability, calibration practices, and the validation of analytical methods. Conversely, entities devoted to inspection activities, such as Medical Examiners, death & crime scene investigations, or digital device examinations, more commonly align with ISO/IEC 17020, which emphasizes the prudent exercise of professional judgment and the documentation of evaluative decisions.

A substantial number of organizations undertake both categories of work. In these circumstances, seeking accreditation under both standards may be advisable. Dual accreditation demonstrates a laboratory’s comprehensive commitment to quality and reliability across distinct operational spheres, thereby strengthening its position under external review and during legal proceedings.

Advantages and Constraints Inherent in Dual Accreditation

The principal benefit of maintaining accreditation to both standards resides in the comprehensive assurance it provides regarding a laboratory’s competence. Accreditation under ISO/IEC 17025 affirms the validity and repeatability of analytical test results, while ISO/IEC 17020 emphasizes the competence and integrity of inspection procedures. Together, these international standards offer a robust endorsement of an institution’s technical capabilities and procedural soundness.

Furthermore, obtaining dual accreditation can improve eligibility for competitive grants and contractual opportunities, as many of these require accredited status. It may also enhance the institution’s credibility with prosecutorial agencies, defense counsel, and the judiciary, thereby decreasing the likelihood of challenges to examiners and laboratory findings or methodologies.

However, pursuing dual accreditation also involves increased administrative responsibilities for the laboratory’s quality team members. Laboratories need to accommodate more comprehensive internal audits, more in-depth documentation requirements, and specialized training aligned with both standards. While maintaining compliance with both standards can place significant demands on personnel and financial resources, it is certainly achievable through careful planning and a teamwork approach.

Strategies to Coordinate Compliance Under Both Standards

Fortunately, revisions to ISO/IEC 17025 published in 2017 brought its structure into closer alignment with that of ISO/IEC 17020. As a result, many foundational elements, such as document control, corrective action protocols, and internal audit processes, may be developed in a manner that satisfies the requirements of both standards simultaneously.

Laboratories contemplating dual accreditation should begin by conducting a thorough gap assessment. This exercise will reveal where current practices meet one or both sets of requirements, and where supplementary measures may be necessary. It is advisable to standardize management system components wherever feasible, thereby minimizing redundant administrative efforts.

Clear delineation of roles and responsibilities is equally important. Personnel must understand precisely when each standard applies, particularly in investigatory and comparative disciplines such as latent prints, firearms/toolmarks, or medicolegal death investigation. In these areas, activities often involve examinations that rely on expert interpretation rather than analytical testing. Dual accreditation allows full-service forensic laboratories to apply the requirements best suited to each discipline, ensuring that testing activities adhere to ISO/IEC 17025 while inspection-based examinations benefit from the framework provided by ISO/IEC 17020.

The Practical Role of Technology in Supporting Compliance

The adoption of advanced case management and evidence handling systems can significantly alleviate the complexity of managing dual accreditation. Platforms such as Forensic Advantage’s Crime Lab LIMS assist laboratories in fulfilling ISO/IEC 17025 requirements by maintaining comprehensive audit trails, overseeing calibration records, and documenting analytical results in a consistent format. Simultaneously, our Medical Examiner Case Management System and tools like FA OnScene are designed to support the systematic capture of professional observations and decisions critical to compliance with ISO/IEC 17020.

These systems also facilitate the integration of personnel training records, chain-of-custody documentation, and the routine management of reagents and instrumentation. By consolidating these elements within a unified digital framework, laboratories can more readily produce evidence of compliance during external assessments or court inquiries.

Steps to Implement Dual Accreditation Within Your Laboratory

For laboratories and inspection units intending to pursue dual accreditation, a disciplined approach is advisable. The following sequence may prove helpful:

Conduct a detailed comparative analysis of current operations relative to both ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO/IEC 17020 requirements, noting areas of convergence and divergence.
Develop integrated management system documents that collectively address both standards wherever practicable, thereby avoiding unnecessary duplication.
Establish clear internal policies that define when each standard governs particular procedures, supported by targeted training to ensure personnel understand and adhere to these distinctions.
Employ specialized software systems to automate the documentation of key compliance activities, which simplifies the retrieval of records during audits or litigation.
Institute a rigorous program of continuing education, particularly for inspectors, in recognition of ISO/IEC 17020’s emphasis on the maintenance and evaluation of professional judgment.

Concluding Observations

While dual accreditation is neither compulsory nor universally warranted, it offers distinct advantages to agencies engaged in both analytical testing and inspection activities. It provides external stakeholders with a comprehensive assurance of the laboratory’s competence and impartiality across its operational spectrum. For laboratories prepared to undertake additional responsibilities, dual accreditation represents a cogent investment in institutional integrity and long-term credibility.