Accreditation and Certification Awards

This policy codifies how ASF actually awards, maintains, suspends, and withdraws an accreditation decision — the step that follows Monitor verification under ASF-MON-STD-v1. It has no PHIG equivalent, since awarding accreditation is specific to ASF’s function as an accreditation body. Owner: Accreditation Decision Committee (ADC), reporting to the International Standards Council.

The decision chain

1. The Monitor signs off each criterion as Verified, Requires Evidence, or Disputed at the full in-facility verification (ASF-MON-STD-v1.1, Standard B4).
2. The Coordinator’s full-year evidence file and Improvement Plan history (Standards D1–D3) accompany the Monitor’s findings to the ADC.
3. The ADC reviews the complete file — not the Monitor’s summary judgment alone — and issues one of four outcomes: Accredited (all Non-Negotiable and required Core criteria verified); Accredited with Conditions (minor gaps, time-bound remediation required); Deferred (material gaps, re-assessment required before a decision); Not Accredited (Non-Negotiable criteria not met).
4. A written decision, with reasons, is issued to the facility within 30 days of the full verification.

Validity, suspension and withdrawal

• Accreditation is valid for 3 years, conditional on sustained compliance verified through the continuous engagement cycle described on Standards Development.
• A confirmed Non-Negotiable breach discovered between full verification cycles triggers immediate ADC review and can suspend accreditation before the next scheduled verification.
• Withdrawal follows the same written-decision, reasons-stated standard as an initial award, and is published on the Public Standards Register alongside the original award.

ADC composition and independence

ADC members are drawn from the International Standards Council but exclude any member with a declared conflict regarding the facility under review, and exclude the Coordinator and Monitor who worked the file directly — the same firewall principle applied to standards development is applied to the award decision itself.

Appealing an accreditation decision

This is separate from the standards-appeals process on Standards Development, which covers disagreement with a published standard itself. A facility may appeal its own accreditation decision — Accredited with Conditions, Deferred, Not Accredited, or a suspension/withdrawal — within 28 days of receiving it, in writing to the Council Chair, stating the grounds: evidence not properly considered or misinterpreted, inappropriate weighting, or a decision process inconsistent with this policy. The appeal is reviewed by a panel of three — the Chair plus two Council members with no connection to the original ADC decision — within one month, independent of the original decision process. The panel’s finding is communicated to the facility in writing and is final.

The certificate

Every certificate states the facility’s name, the specific scope of accreditation (facility type, modules assessed), the effective date, and the 3-year validity term.

Protecting the integrity of the accreditation mark

A facility may display the ASF accreditation mark only for the scope and period actually awarded, and only while accreditation remains valid. ASF investigates and acts on any reported misuse — display after suspension or withdrawal, or a claim of accreditation for services never assessed — under Feedback, Complaints and Incident Management (ASF-POL-21). A facility is required to notify ASF of any significant change — ownership, major service expansion, relocation, or a serious incident — outside the normal quarterly cycle; the ADC determines whether an expedited Monitor re-verification is needed before the next scheduled cycle point.

Public accreditation register

ASF publishes which facilities are currently accredited, including the scope and validity dates, and states clearly when an award has been suspended or withdrawn — a public accredited-facilities register distinct from the Public Standards Register (which covers ASF’s own standards and policies, not individual facility outcomes). Facility names already withheld under an active confidentiality arrangement (see the Field Testing Record) remain withheld until that arrangement ends.

Monitoring decision consistency

ADC decisions are periodically reviewed against the award criteria above to confirm consistency across facilities and over time; any deviation identified is addressed and, where it affects a live decision, disclosed to the facility concerned.