Three things laboratories keep needing.

A budget is only worth what its weakest contribution can be traced to. I build budgets to the GUM and, more often, review budgets that already exist — against the measurement they actually support, and against the scope you hold.

What you get

• A documented budget with every contribution, its distribution, and the source it rests on
• Sensitivity coefficients and how they were derived, written down rather than assumed
• A stated basis for each Type B contribution, so an assessor can follow it without asking
• A short review memo naming what I would change and in what order

A gap assessment run the way an accreditation assessment is run — scope, technical competence, traceability, records, data integrity — and reported the way you will receive the real one, with time left to respond.

What you get

• Findings written as nonconformities and observations, in the form and language of an assessment report
• A prioritised response plan separating what must change from what would merely be tidier
• Document review against the clauses, not against a checklist someone else wrote
• Optional follow-up once corrective actions are drafted

Where calibration records support product release, the system around the measurement matters as much as the measurement. Procedures, provider qualification, and the investigation that follows when something is out of tolerance.

What you get

• Procedures drafted or revised to sit correctly against both the standard and your quality system
• A risk-tiered framework for qualifying and monitoring external calibration providers
• Criteria for reviewing incoming certificates — what makes one acceptable, and what does not
• Root cause investigation support and input to corrective and preventive action
• Training delivered to the people who have to run it afterwards