NAF

Nepal Accreditation Foundation

NAF-MGT-COMP-01 | Rev 00 | Active

Issued By

Er. Abishek Adhikari, CEO

Prepared By

Anuska Adhikari, QM

Strategic Purpose

The integrity of Nepal’s national quality infrastructure relies on the systematic verification that competence is maintained over time.
Accreditation is a dynamic, ongoing demonstration of technical mastery. This policy establishes the precise mechanisms required to ensure
that accredited CABs consistently maintain technical competence, structural impartiality, and ethical operation.

National Context

With extreme poverty at just 0.4%, the burgeoning middle class demands reliable health and consumer safety standards. Proactive monitoring dismantles systemic failures and ethical issues.

Global Alignment

Protocols are aligned with APAC and ILAC ecosystems to achieve a “one-stop” system for cross-border trade, ensuring Nepalese reports are accepted globally.

Policy Objectives

1
Establish a multi-channel, risk-based intelligence-gathering framework for early detection.
2
Operationalize ISO/IEC 17011:2017 requirements for continuous surveillance.
3
Define evidentiary thresholds for extraordinary assessments and sanctions.
4
Safeguard the NAF symbol from fraudulent misuse or misleading market claims.

Core Principles

Continuous

Oversight beyond annual audits.

Risk-Based

Prioritized resource allocation.

Diverse

Multi-source triangulation.

Decisive

Timely and proportionate actions.

Definitions

Accreditation: Formal demonstration of competence.

CAB: Legal entity performing conformity assessment.

Monitoring: Forensic analysis outside scheduled events.

Extraordinary Assessment: Surprise assessment triggered by high-risk intelligence.

The Monitoring Ecosystem

NAF avoids “regulatory capture” by collecting intelligence from six primary vectors. This multi-channel approach ensures that masked non-compliances are detected through external indicators.

Select a vector card above to view details

Click on one of the cards above to see how NAF utilizes that specific information stream to monitor compliance.

Risk-Based Enforcement Architecture

NAF allocates monitoring resources based on three factors: Severity (Threat to life/safety), Likelihood (Systemic vs. Isolated), and Impact (Infrastructure integrity).

Correction/NC

Minor deviations requiring root cause analysis via NAF-FORM-GEN-04.

Extraordinary Assessment

Triggered by whistleblowers or severe PT failures. Surprise audit at CAB expense.

Suspension/Reduction

Temporary invalidation of status. Publicly broadcasted to protect the market.

Withdrawal

Permanent termination for gross misconduct or irreconcilable failure.

Enforcement Severity Map

Bubble size indicates the frequency of monitoring required for that risk profile.

Sector-Specific Monitoring Nuances

Accreditation oversight is tailored to the unique risks of each technical standard.

Roles & Responsibilities Matrix

Role	Key Responsibilities
CEO (Er. Abishek)	Ultimate executive accountability. Authorizes suspensions/withdrawals. Manages regulatory liaison.
Quality Manager (Anuska)	Central operational hub. Triage of complaints/PT failures. Maintains risk matrix.
Lead Assessors	Field verification. Execute extraordinary assessments. Verify corrective action plans (CAPs).
Decisions Committee	Independent body making binding decisions on accreditation status maintenance.

Interlocking QMS Framework

NAF-GOV-03 Impartiality Policy

NAF-GOV-04 Complaints/Appeals

NAF-GOV-08 Accreditation Symbol Use

NAF-PROC-07 Suspension/Withdrawal

NAF-MGT-01 Risk Management

Confidentiality & Security

All monitoring data is forensic in nature. Pursuant to NAF-GOV-11, personnel must maintain strict confidence regarding proprietary methods or allegations.
Communication with whistleblowers is limited to receipt acknowledgement to protect the CAB’s commercial privacy while ensuring public accountability.

This application is a digital representation of the NAF-MGT-COMP-01 Policy Framework.