Overview
Every test request that arrives at a laboratory triggers a chain of decisions mandated by ISO/IEC 17025:2017 Clause 7.1. Before any work begins, the lab must confirm it has the capability, resources, and appropriate methods to meet the customer’s requirements. This skill builds a complete contract review procedure that covers every scenario your lab will encounter – from a first-time client sending an unusual soil matrix to a long-standing municipal customer with a standing monthly order.
The procedure addresses the full lifecycle of customer engagement: initial request evaluation, method selection and capability confirmation, turnaround time commitments, subcontracting decisions when work falls outside scope, customer notification of deviations, and formal dispute resolution. For repeat or routine work, it defines a simplified review pathway that avoids unnecessary overhead while still ensuring nothing has changed in the customer’s requirements or the lab’s capability.
What It Covers
- New request review – capability assessment, method selection per Clause 7.2.1.1 hierarchy, resource availability check before accepting work
- Repeat/routine work – simplified review criteria for unchanged scope, standing order handling
- Amendment handling – process for managing changes to accepted contracts, customer notification, scope adjustments
- Method selection criteria – confirming the laboratory uses appropriate, validated methods for each request
- Capability assessment – verifying personnel competence, equipment availability, and accreditation scope coverage
- Subcontracting decisions – criteria for when and how to subcontract work outside the lab’s scope, customer approval requirements
- Turnaround time commitments – realistic delivery timelines accounting for current workload and method requirements
- Customer communication – notification of deviations, delays, subcontracting, and any departures from the original agreement
- Dispute resolution – formal process for handling contract disagreements and customer complaints
- Review records – documenting who reviewed, when, and what was decided for each request
Example Conversation
You: We need a contract review procedure for LabTech Analytical. We’re an environmental testing lab in Austin doing drinking water and soil testing – 12 analysts, going for A2LA accreditation. Right now we just have a paper form the receptionist fills out when samples come in, but our consultant said that won’t cut it for 17025.
Agent: Your consultant is right – Clause 7.1 requires a structured review before accepting work, not just logging samples at receipt. Let me build this out. A few questions to get the context right:
- Who currently decides whether you can accept a job? Is it the lab director, or do individual department leads make the call?
- Do you ever get requests for tests outside your scope – say, someone asking for pesticides or VOCs that you don’t run?
- How do you handle rush requests or tight turnaround times?
You: Sarah Chen (lab director) approves everything new. For routine municipal clients like Austin Water and Travis County, the department leads just confirm we still have capacity. We do get oddball requests – last month someone wanted PFAS in soil and we had to turn them away. For rush jobs we charge extra and Sarah decides if we can fit it in.
Agent: Good – that gives me the three review pathways I need: new requests (Sarah reviews), routine/repeat work (department leads confirm), and out-of-scope requests (decline or subcontract). I’ll also build in the rush request workflow with Sarah as the approver.
For the subcontracting piece – when you turned away the PFAS request, did you refer them elsewhere? Clause 7.1 says if you subcontract, the customer must be informed and agree. Do you have any subcontract relationships with other accredited labs?
You: We have an informal arrangement with TestAmerica for organics work – we’ve sent maybe 3-4 jobs their way this year. Nothing formal on paper though.
Agent: We’ll need to formalize that. The procedure will require a documented subcontracting agreement and customer notification before sending work out. I’ll include criteria for evaluating subcontractors (A2LA accredited for the specific test, documented quality agreement).
I’ve drafted the contract review procedure. Let me run the
contract_review_completeness_checker…Result: REVIEW – 1 finding:
- MISSING: No customer notification of deviations – must define when and how customers are informed of deviations from the contract
I need to strengthen the deviation notification section. When a test takes longer than promised or a method has to change mid-job, how do you notify the customer today?
You: Usually whoever is running the samples just calls or emails the project manager on the client side. There’s no formal requirement or template.
Agent: I’ve added a structured deviation notification procedure: within 24 hours of discovery, the analyst notifies the department lead, who emails the customer using a standard template that describes the deviation, the impact, and proposed resolution. The customer’s acknowledgment is recorded in the project file.
Running the checker again – PASS. All required contract review elements are documented. The procedure is saved to
output/Request-Contract-Review-Procedure.md.
Sample Output Excerpt
The skill produces a complete contract review procedure. Here is a representative excerpt covering the new request review process and amendment handling.
4. Review of New Requests
4.1 Triggering Event
A new request review is triggered when:
- A customer not previously served by LabTech Analytical submits a testing request
- An existing customer requests a test method, matrix, or analyte not previously performed for them
- A request involves non-standard methods or special reporting requirements
4.2 Review Steps
| Step | Action | Responsible | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Receive request and log in LIMS | Sample Receiving Coordinator | LIMS entry with date/time stamp |
| 2 | Verify requested methods are within A2LA accreditation scope | Department Lead | Scope checklist on review form |
| 3 | Confirm analyst competence and equipment availability | Department Lead | Capacity check section |
| 4 | Assess turnaround time feasibility against current workload | Department Lead | Estimated completion date |
| 5 | Identify any subcontracting needs | Department Lead | Subcontracting decision with justification |
| 6 | Final approval for new customer/new scope work | Laboratory Director (Sarah Chen) | Signature and date on review form |
| 7 | Communicate acceptance and any conditions to customer | Department Lead | Email confirmation retained in project file |
4.3 Method Selection Confirmation
For each requested test, the reviewer shall confirm:
- The method is published by a recognized body (EPA, ASTM, Standard Methods) per the Clause 7.2.1.1 hierarchy
- LabTech Analytical has a current, validated version of the method
- The method’s validated range covers the customer’s required reporting limits
- Any customer-specified deviations from the standard method are technically evaluated
7. Amendment Handling
7.1 Scope Changes After Acceptance
When a customer requests changes to an accepted contract (additional analytes, changed matrices, revised reporting limits, or adjusted turnaround):
- The Department Lead evaluates the change against current capability and workload
- If the amendment affects accredited scope, method applicability, or turnaround commitment, the Laboratory Director must re-approve
- The customer is notified in writing of any impact on cost, turnaround, or reporting format
- The original review record is annotated with the amendment details, date, and reviewer
Extension Tools
contract_review_completeness_checker
Validates the contract review procedure document for ISO 17025 Clause 7.1 compliance. Scans for all required procedural elements and reports any gaps.
| Check | What It Validates | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| New request review | Process for reviewing first-time or non-routine customer requests | MISSING if absent |
| Repeat/routine work | Simplified review pathway for unchanged-scope repeat orders | MISSING if absent |
| Amendment handling | Procedure for managing changes to accepted contracts | MISSING if absent |
| Method selection | Criteria for selecting appropriate test/calibration methods | MISSING if absent |
| Capability assessment | Verification of lab capability before accepting work | MISSING if absent |
| Subcontracting decisions | Criteria for when and how subcontracting is decided | MISSING if absent |
| Turnaround time | Turnaround or delivery time commitment addressed | MISSING if absent |
| Customer notification | Process for informing customers of deviations from contract | MISSING if absent |
| Dispute resolution | Procedure for handling contract disputes or complaints | MISSING if absent |
| Review records | Requirements for documenting who reviewed, date, and outcome | MISSING if absent |
Getting Started
Start by activating the ISO 17025 Request, Tender & Contract Review skill. The agent will ask about your laboratory’s current intake process, who makes acceptance decisions, and what types of requests you handle.
Have this information ready:
- Who approves new work (lab director, department leads, or a combination)
- Your scope of accreditation – which methods, matrices, and analytes you can accept
- How you handle repeat/routine customers differently from first-time requests
- Whether you subcontract any work and to which laboratories
- Your standard turnaround times and how rush requests are managed
- Current customer communication practices for delays or deviations
- Any existing complaint or dispute handling procedures
If you have already completed the ISO 17025 Laboratory Profile skill, the agent will use your scope of accreditation and personnel information to tailor the review criteria automatically.