ICC files legal action again

[CodeWarrior]

ICC-ES has a new leader, David Tompos. But they haven't changed tactics and filed another lawsuit, this one against DrJ. DrJ issues code reports on certain types of building products, and has likely taken work from ICC-ES.

Among other grievances, The lawsuit alleges a document "Product Approval Checklist for Code Officials” offered by DrJ, is being falsely represented as prepared by ICC.

Now, such a document might be welcomed by code officials but ICC seems to have no interest in providing such a document. At least the press release doesn't say they have done so. ICC could have said, okay, we disown the checklist DrJ has, but here is our resource for building officials.

Anyway, you can still obtain the checklist from DrJ before it disappears.

International Code Council Files Lawsuit Against DrJ Engineering

The lawsuit asserts trademark infringement and false advertising.

www.phcppros.com

 

[tmurray]

Did you look at the checklist? I found it after a quick google search.

The only visual identifier used on it is the ICC logo.

Honestly, I'm not sure who would be in need of this checklist. It's very basic.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

WOW!

I had never heard of DrJ. Now that I have, my opinion is (per Monty Python), "RUN AWAY!"

I just pulled up their product approval for a paint-on fire-retardant for wood. It's full of verbiage and it purports to represent that the product meets the IBC. Reading deeper, what they actually say is (to paraphrase) "This stuff can be accepted by code officials under their authority to approve new and alternate materials per IBC section 1702."

In essence, then, the entire report isn't an objective report of a test of the material under any recognized ASTM or other standard, it's an engineering judgment. And then the report goes on to try to scare code officials into NOT accepting it:

Should there be an issue with respect to the “approval of use” of this alternative material using an alternative method of FRT manufacturing, any disapproval shall be based upon specific provisions of adopted legislation and shall be provided in writing stating the reasons why the alternative was not approved with reference to any legislation or regulations that have been violated.
DrJ is unaware of any additional legislation or regulations that relate to the approval of TW4400. Based on this professional engineering analysis, TW4400 meets all of the requirements that have been adopted into law and is approved for use where regulations require the use of an FRTW.

This is just legalese BS, intended to frighten an unwary code official into accepting something that hasn't been fully tested in accordance with recognized test procedures by an accredited testing laboratory. Our authority to approve new and alternate materials actually derives from IBC section 104.11, which says:

[A] 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of
construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are
not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to
prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically
prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has
been approved. An alternative material, design or method of
construction shall be approved where the building official
finds that the proposed alternative meets all of the following:

1. The alternative material, design or method of construction
is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the
provisions of this code,
2. The material, method or work offered is, for the purpose
intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed
in this code as it pertains to the following:
2.1. Quality.
2.2. Strength.
2.3. Effectiveness.
2.4. Fire resistance.
2.5. Durability.
2.6. Safety.

Where the alternative material, design or method of construction
is not approved, the building official shall respond in
writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not
approved.

So we can accept an engineering judgment (we've been accepting EJs for decades -- when they come from trusted sources), but the proposed alternate material has to satisfy ALL of the criteria listed in IBC 104.11. And, in rejecting a proposed alternative material, we do NOT have to cite any "reference to any legislation or regulations that have been violated."

As for their checklist -- now that I've seen it, I don't need it. Those are all the things I automatically look for when reviewing an ICC-ES report anyway.

 

[steveray]

And, in rejecting a proposed alternative material, we do NOT have to cite any "reference to any legislation or regulations that have been violated."

That language did come in at one point/ code cycle as they are trying to get us to approve more and more with less and less guidance or access to standards....

2024 IBC:

[A] 104.2.3.2 Application and disposition.​

Where required, a request to use an alternative material, design or method of construction shall be submitted in writing to the building official for approval. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons the alternative was not approved.

 

[CodeWarrior]

Well, the checklist mentions accreditations, which is not a code requirement per se, but the code official should have an objective method for accepting reports. LA CIty Now requires accredited agencies per their latest code, and perhaps other jurisdictions have something similar.

 

[tmurray]

WOW!

I had never heard of DrJ. Now that I have, my opinion is (per Monty Python), "RUN AWAY!"

I just pulled up their product approval for a paint-on fire-retardant for wood. It's full of verbiage and it purports to represent that the product meets the IBC. Reading deeper, what they actually say is (to paraphrase) "This stuff can be accepted by code officials under their authority to approve new and alternate materials per IBC section 1702."

In essence, then, the entire report isn't an objective report of a test of the material under any recognized ASTM or other standard, it's an engineering judgment. And then the report goes on to try to scare code officials into NOT accepting it:



This is just legalese BS, intended to frighten an unwary code official into accepting something that hasn't been fully tested in accordance with recognized test procedures by an accredited testing laboratory. Our authority to approve new and alternate materials actually derives from IBC section 104.11, which says:



So we can accept an engineering judgment (we've been accepting EJs for decades -- when they come from trusted sources), but the proposed alternate material has to satisfy ALL of the criteria listed in IBC 104.11. And, in rejecting a proposed alternative material, we do NOT have to cite any "reference to any legislation or regulations that have been violated."

As for their checklist -- now that I've seen it, I don't need it. Those are all the things I automatically look for when reviewing an ICC-ES report anyway.

HAHAHA. I like how they try to force a requirement on building officials.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

That language did come in at one point/ code cycle as they are trying to get us to approve more and more with less and less guidance or access to standards....

2024 IBC:

[A] 104.2.3.2 Application and disposition.​

Where required, a request to use an alternative material, design or method of construction shall be submitted in writing to the building official for approval. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons the alternative was not approved.

Yes, the code requires the BO to state the reason for disapproval -- and it should. But the code does NOT require that "any disapproval shall be based upon specific provisions of adopted legislation ... "

 

[steveray]

Yes, the code requires the BO to state the reason for disapproval -- and it should. But the code does NOT require that "any disapproval shall be based upon specific provisions of adopted legislation ... "

At some point there was a proposal for some ugly "how dare the BO question me the all powerful designer" language proposed and maybe we got it beat down...Between skipping cycles (2018) and working in/on everything from 2021 to 2027 now...I'm getting blurry....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

At some point there was a proposal for some ugly "how dare the BO question me the all powerful designer" language proposed and maybe we got it beat down...Between skipping cycles (2018) and working in/on everything from 2021 to 2027 now...I'm getting blurry....

Considering that it's our JOB to question the almighty designer, that's a rather scary proposal.

 

[Paul Sweet]

A problem we often encountered before I retired is that the IBC requires NFPA 285 testing for many exterior wall assemblies. The NFPA 285 test is product-specific, so you can't substitute an identical product by another manufacturer without a code modification. DrJ reports were one way of showing they were equivalent. The state building code official didn't blindly accept their evaluation, but would only accept equivalent products that had passed NFPA 285 testing in a similar assembly.

 

[Free&Fair]

This is interesting in that the Building Official Checklist is an ICC document and can be found on https://my.iccsafe.org/product-approval-checklist.

The most credible firm providing certification are ANAB cerfified which LA now using for professional vetting.

Directory Listings Accredited

anabpd.ansi.org

A few questions:

1. Is ICC-ES on the ANAB 17065 list?

1. Is UL on the ANAB 17065 list?

1. Is DrJ on the ANAB 17065 list?

Final questions, do any of the folks on the ANAB product certification list also stand behind their work through a professional engineer signing and sealing it?

If any do so, then does that not reduce a city's liability, given that there is a delegated engineer providing support of product efficacy and likely professional liability insurance?

This seems like it would be very similar to a professional engineering seal on a truss design drawing, correct?

Can you get signed and sealed design values for lumber, OSB, plywood and/or Simpson connectors to name a few that many view as credible? Are they?

You can for trusses. Why trusses and not lumber, they both provide structural resistance?

Just a few ideas to explore and direct evidence/facts to consider.

 

[jar546]

Since this is an active lawsuit, I am going to caution everyone to tread lightly on this subject, especially since we have people very close to the lawsuit now registering here for a posting, potentially with an agenda. Let's break down this lawsuit so everyone knows what is in the filing. If you are going to register here and post, the better option would have been to not start out of the gate presenting a case to the public on an active lawsuit. The Building Code Forum (TBCF) does not have a horse in this race, and any posts here by registered members are their own opinion and not the opinion of TBCF.

Summary of the Lawsuit: International Code Council, Inc. and ICC Evaluation Service, LLC v. DrJ Engineering, LLC​

Parties Involved:

• Plaintiffs: International Code Council, Inc. (ICC) and ICC Evaluation Service, LLC (ICC-ES)
• Defendants: DrJ Engineering, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company, and DrJ Engineering, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (collectively referred to as "DrJ")

Court and Case Number:

• United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-4998

Nature of the Action:

• The lawsuit is filed by ICC and ICC-ES against DrJ for trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and common law, along with related violations of Illinois law.
• ICC alleges that DrJ has willfully caused confusion among consumers by unauthorized use of ICC’s trademarks and false advertising, harming ICC's business, reputation, and goodwill.

Key Allegations:

1. Trademark Infringement: DrJ allegedly used ICC’s trademarks without authorization in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion regarding the approval, association, or endorsement of DrJ’s products and services by ICC.
2. False Advertising: DrJ is accused of making false claims about its products being “ICC-Approved” and using terms like “ICC Approved” and “ICC Accepted,” which ICC asserts are misleading.
3. Unfair Competition: DrJ’s actions, including false claims and unauthorized use of ICC’s trademarks, allegedly constitute unfair competition, damaging ICC’s reputation and misleading consumers.
4. Specific Misconduct: DrJ is accused of using ICC’s trademarks on documents and promotional materials, creating the false impression that ICC has created or endorsed certain checklists and procedures used by DrJ.

Relief Sought by Plaintiffs:

• Injunctive Relief: Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop DrJ from using ICC’s trademarks, making false claims, and misleading consumers.
• Damages: Plaintiffs seek damages including DrJ’s profits resulting from the alleged unlawful acts, treble damages, and punitive damages for willful and intentional misconduct.
• Corrective Measures: Plaintiffs request that DrJ issue corrective statements and remove any infringing or misleading content from its materials and websites.
• Legal Fees: Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the lawsuit.

Legal Grounds:

• Lanham Act Violations: Trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), false designation of origin, and false advertising (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).
• Illinois State Law Violations: Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.).
• Common Law Unfair Competition: Claims under Illinois common law.

Conclusion:The plaintiffs, ICC and ICC-ES, assert that DrJ's unauthorized use of ICC’s trademarks and false advertising has caused significant harm to their reputation, business, and consumer trust. They seek both injunctive relief to prevent further misuse and monetary compensation for damages incurred. The case highlights the importance of trademark protection and honest advertising practices within the building code and product evaluation industry.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is interesting in that the Building Official Checklist is an ICC document and can be found on https://my.iccsafe.org/product-approval-checklist.

You must be an ICC member to view the checklist. (I am, but at the moment I'm too lazy to look up my ICC password.)

 

[jar546]

You must be an ICC member to view the checklist. (I am, but at the moment I'm too lazy to look up my ICC password.)

I did not even know it existed until this thread was started.

 

[Free&Fair]

[A] 104.2.3.2 Application and disposition.​

Where required, a request to use an alternative material, design or method of construction shall be submitted in writing to the building official for approval. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons the alternative was not approved.

Wayne Jewell, a building official in Michigan and a frequent ICC code development moderator, wrote the last sentence with 2 other professionals many years ago -- mid 2000s.
Wayne's point was that building officials and professional engineers should be teammates. If the professional building official provides the reason for error in reading and comprehending the law that should be properly enforced, a professional engineer can understand it and cure the error. This makes working relationships valuable because there is mutual learning and quite fun.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

[A] 104.2.3.2 Application and disposition.​

Where required, a request to use an alternative material, design or method of construction shall be submitted in writing to the building official for approval. Where the alternative material, design or method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons the alternative was not approved.

Wayne Jewell, a building official in Michigan and a frequent ICC code development moderator, wrote the last sentence with 2 other professionals many years ago -- mid 2000s.
Wayne's point was that building officials and professional engineers should be teammates. If the professional building official provides the reason for error in reading and comprehending the law that should be properly enforced, a professional engineer can understand it and cure the error. This makes working relationships valuable because there is mutual learning and quite fun.

A couple of points:

1. The sports analogy ("teammates") is a false analogy. The architect, the consulting engineers, and (if there is one) the professional code consultant are members of the design team. The contractor and subcontractors are members of a team, but it's a different team than the design team. Code officials and inspectors are not members of either the design team or the construction team. If anything, the code officials are more akin to the referees or umpires, keeping an eye on the progress of the "game," and throwing a red flag when they see a rule being violated.
2. I do not understand this sentence: "If the professional building official provides the reason for error in reading and comprehending the law that should be properly enforced, a professional engineer can understand it and cure the error." What does this mean, and how does an error in reading a law in any way apply to a building official's decision to approve or disapprove a request to use a new and alternative material or method of construction?

As a regulation adopted pursuant to statute, the building code IS law. Where an alternative material or method is proposed, there is no question of the "law" (the code) not being understood. The material or method is not addressed by the code, therefore the code grants the AHJ the authority to review and to approve or reject an alternative. If the material or method were satisfactory under the code (the "law"), the design professional wouldn't be submitting a request to approve it as an alternative. The code doesn't say the AHJ must approve something just because a design professional submits it. It only says the code official shall state in writing his reasons for not approving. All that's required is for the code official to write "I don't think the documentation submitted demonstrates to my satisfaction that this new gizmo will perform as well as or better than the doohickey that the code calls for. Request denied."

 

[Mark K]

The provisions for alternate means and methods only apply if the designer first proposes an alternate

 

[jar546]

The provisions for alternate means and methods only apply if the designer first proposes an alternate

Agree. Alternative means and methods are presented to the Building Department, not by them. There is not always a design professional of record on every job, so sometimes, the contractor or permit applicant is the one proposing an alternative means and method.

 

[Free&Fair]

ICC-ES has a new leader, David Tompos. But they haven't changed tactics and filed another lawsuit, this one against DrJ. DrJ issues code reports on certain types of building products, and has likely taken work from ICC-ES.

Among other grievances, The lawsuit alleges a document "Product Approval Checklist for Code Officials” offered by DrJ, is being falsely represented as prepared by ICC.

Now, such a document might be welcomed by code officials but ICC seems to have no interest in providing such a document. At least the press release doesn't say they have done so. ICC could have said, okay, we disown the checklist DrJ has, but here is our resource for building officials.

Anyway, you can still obtain the checklist from DrJ before it disappears.

International Code Council Files Lawsuit Against DrJ Engineering

The lawsuit asserts trademark infringement and false advertising.

www.phcppros.com

The folks on this thread and others may recall that this is a thread where DrJ Engineering took a bit of a negative hit in an important area of its business.

Ostensibly, deemed to be NOT a professional or credible organization, i.e. “Run Away”

Final actions always speak louder than words. These actions are inconvenient truths that are quietly disposed of so they remain unseen for a reason, damage done.

Here are the two past and prominent ICC website links regarding the ICC lawsuit against DrJ, as they exist today.

https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/...1_PL_Complaint_w-Exhibits_A-R_reduced_new.pdf
https://www.iccsafe.org/about/perio...il-files-lawsuit-against-drj-engineering-llc/

The reason why the links are this way is that DrJ’s crime from the beginning was to download and use the ICC created "Product Approval Checklist" as an ICC member company.




The following was said by this forum – “Honestly, I'm not sure who would be in need of this checklist. It's very basic.”

If DrJ did commit a crime, can it be imagined the kind of money that ICC would use to squash a small business working hard to exist. ICC has $187 million tax-free balance sheet dollars to work with -- https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/363999004. Business is much easier to build if one gets to do it tax-free.

Qualtim began in 1989 with 1 employee, it has more than 70 today, has added 15 more in the last 18 months and interviews for more when solid professionals come our way. Qualtim’s 2nd employee is with Qualtim today and Qualtim leadership has been with Qualtim since 2007 or longer. In fact if anyone in this forum is looking for professional work helping us to create the most user friendly and professional engineering accurate duly authenticated reports (i.e. DrJ Listings/TERs), Qualtim would love to communicate with you.

Qualtim is still a very small business, paying its taxes, while competing the best we can with very large organizations everyone is familiar with.

Life is well-known not to be fair. That is both OK and motivational.

Yet I would encourage everyone in this forum to be grounded in the truth as many of us are merely doing our best to provide great jobs based on a fundamental principle that all Qualtim staff are passionate about:

Competition in a free market benefits American consumers, workers, and taxpayers. It provides consumers with lower prices, better quality, greater choice, and innovation. It provides workers with job opportunities, higher wages, better benefits, and other terms of employment. And it ensures that taxpayer dollars are well spent on goods and services for the public’s benefit rather than lost to collusion. https://www.justice.gov/atr/mission

As Paul Harvey said, "And now you know.......the rest of the story…….Good day!”

 

[socaldano]

This is interesting in that the Building Official Checklist is an ICC document and can be found on https://my.iccsafe.org/product-approval-checklist.
View attachment 13890
The most credible firm providing certification are ANAB cerfified which LA now using for professional vetting.

Directory Listings Accredited

anabpd.ansi.org

A few questions:

1. Is ICC-ES on the ANAB 17065 list?

View attachment 13887

1. Is UL on the ANAB 17065 list?

View attachment 13888

1. Is DrJ on the ANAB 17065 list?

View attachment 13889

Final questions, do any of the folks on the ANAB product certification list also stand behind their work through a professional engineer signing and sealing it?

If any do so, then does that not reduce a city's liability, given that there is a delegated engineer providing support of product efficacy and likely professional liability insurance?

This seems like it would be very similar to a professional engineering seal on a truss design drawing, correct?

Can you get signed and sealed design values for lumber, OSB, plywood and/or Simpson connectors to name a few that many view as credible? Are they?

You can for trusses. Why trusses and not lumber, they both provide structural resistance?

Just a few ideas to explore and direct evidence/facts to consider.

My 2 cents worth.. I want the Cities to publish a list of what their inspector is looking for. Each occupancy permit inspector has his own standards and essentially lies when he says he is going by the International Building Code. And the Cities seem to be mandated to use the existing building code but don't. Some are fair, some are outragious. Especially requiring a $500 certification for electrical or plumbing or something which essentially requires 1950s construction pass the 202x's codes. And you have to pay for it.

In short, according to the one court ruling in Missouri on this topic. Its is not so much the owner's mandate to prove it is safe according to court rulings, it is the City's obligation to prove its actually a health and safety issue....not just the musings of an inspector. Denying a homeowner fair use of his property by denying an occupancy permit when an adult is moving in.. The IC codes define it as "condemn" when adjudicated unfit for habitation. By condemning a house without due process triggers 5th amendment regulatory taking of property. Also triggers Privileges and Immunities Clause of US Constitution and state Constitutions where you are allowed to live wherever you want without getting government permission (Edwards v California 1941) zoning requirements excepted.
As far as I know, only St Loius County requires occupancy permit and registration of individuals when anyone but an infant is added to a property. St Loius city's similar law was shot down by the courts.
Denying a building permit prior to construction is a different conversation.

This is a can of worms that likely not been challenged in court yet... My state, Missouri, statute 327 essentially makes a P.E. acting within the scope of his training and education as a god. It is also a crime to present himself as a P.E. if he is not. The IBC codes make some claims as god, which violate the US and Missouri Constitution (such as requiring people to admit an inspector without a warrant, violating Camara v Municipal Court and its liteny of progeny). Missouri has not adopted the IBC, but the quirk is that any city can have a P.E. adopt it in book form and recommend it to the city with or without changes. Missouri is clear, (Bazeyiff v City of St Loius) that the burden of proof of health and safety is on the city not the individual. The City cannot just make the declaration, but must prove beyond reason that the structure, design or whatever is an actual and immediate threat. Not just surmising it is a health and safety issue. Possibly requiring an identical situation where someone was hurt. It is different in a state that has adopted the IC's in book form as every state has often adopted the NEC or the MUTCD.
I got on this site because of certain local inspectors who, like in January condemned a 120 year house with white oak hardwood floors because he either wanted it replaced or covered as being a former flooring guy, expects everyone to move into a house with new looking floors. He also condemned the house because there was no CO2 detector on the 2nd floor, where there was no gas appliances and he demanded the smoke detector be separate from the CO2 detector. Lastly he condemned the house because he wanted the driveway (with snow on it) slurry sealed, even though it was better than the two streets attached to the house.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The folks on this thread and others may recall that this is a thread where DrJ Engineering took a bit of a negative hit in an important area of its business.

Ostensibly, deemed to be NOT a professional or credible organization, i.e. “Run Away”

Final actions always speak louder than words. These actions are inconvenient truths that are quietly disposed of so they remain unseen for a reason, damage done.

. . .

The following was said by this forum – “Honestly, I'm not sure who would be in need of this checklist. It's very basic.”

If DrJ did commit a crime, can it be imagined the kind of money that ICC would use to squash a small business working hard to exist. ICC has $187 million tax-free balance sheet dollars to work with -- https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/363999004. Business is much easier to build if one gets to do it tax-free.

Qualtim began in 1989 with 1 employee, it has more than 70 today, has added 15 more in the last 18 months and interviews for more when solid professionals come our way. Qualtim’s 2nd employee is with Qualtim today and Qualtim leadership has been with Qualtim since 2007 or longer. In fact if anyone in this forum is looking for professional work helping us to create the most user friendly and professional engineering accurate duly authenticated reports (i.e. DrJ Listings/TERs), Qualtim would love to communicate with you.

Qualtim is still a very small business, paying its taxes, while competing the best we can with very large organizations everyone is familiar with.

Life is well-known not to be fair. That is both OK and motivational.

Yet I would encourage everyone in this forum to be grounded in the truth as many of us are merely doing our best to provide great jobs based on a fundamental principle that all Qualtim staff are passionate about:

Competition in a free market benefits American consumers, workers, and taxpayers. It provides consumers with lower prices, better quality, greater choice, and innovation. It provides workers with job opportunities, higher wages, better benefits, and other terms of employment. And it ensures that taxpayer dollars are well spent on goods and services for the public’s benefit rather than lost to collusion. https://www.justice.gov/atr/mission

As Paul Harvey said, "And now you know.......the rest of the story…….Good day!”

It appears from my understanding of your post that you either work for DrJ or are an advocate for them.

I still don't trust their reports. Nothing in your post changes my opinion that they are a fringe player, attempting to appear legitimate.

 

[Free&Fair]

It appears from my understanding of your post that you either work for DrJ or are an advocate for them.

I still don't trust their reports. Nothing in your post changes my opinion that they are a fringe player, attempting to appear legitimate.

I am the Professional Engineer owner of DrJ, Qualtim, CBI, ABTG and Pushing7. It is anyone's prerogative to not trust us or anyone for that matter. However, since 1989 I have been signing and sealing our work and standing behind all of it. Please ask for signed and sealed ANAB ISO/IEC 17065 reports from anyone else. Please also ask for signed and sealed design properties for lumber or OSB. Before judging the book by a cover, please come and visit us to assess for yourself if the contents of our work has depth of knowledge attached to it or not. We can show you testing that will provide substance to why we believe what we believe and do what we do. Anyone and everyone is welcome to come and judge us eye to eye. We'll address any questions that anyone has. We will even buy anyone lunch or dinner depending on the time of the visit.
Thank you for your point of view.
PS I suspect not too many folks have an understanding of light frame construction and load path data acquisition from testing like the following pictures provide. Again, thank you for your point of view.









The following test provided evidence to rescue a truss plant owner from a homicide accusation, because we recreated exactly what happened in the field.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I am the Professional Engineer owner of DrJ, Qualtim, CBI, ABTG and Pushing7. It is anyone's prerogative to not trust us or anyone for that matter. However, since 1989 I have been signing and sealing our work and standing behind all of it. Please ask for signed and sealed ANAB ISO/IEC 17065 reports from anyone else.

My state specifies NVLAP accreditation in statute. Sorry. ANAB doesn't count.

A2LA, ANAB OR NVLAP? Decoding the Differences in Accrediting Bodies - Alcami

by Jeremy Kraft, Sr. Manager, Metrology Recently, the question of what differentiates A2LA, ANAB, and NVLAP has arisen. While researching these ‘big three’ metrology accreditation bodies, we identified various distinctions and parallels. A2LA, or the American Association for Laboratory...

www.alcami.com