Choosing Accredited Labs for IEC 62368-1 Testing

Finding Qualified IEC 62368-1 Testing Labs

Approximately 50% of electronic products fail their initial electromagnetic compatibility tests, often causing substantial launch delays. For hardware manufacturers navigating International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62368-1 compliance, the choice of testing laboratory can make the difference between an on-time market launch and costly redesign cycles.

And one thing every manufacturer should recognize is that IEC 62368-1 testing labs aren't created equal. The difference between a properly accredited facility with hazard-based safety engineering expertise and a basic testing house can determine whether your product reaches market on schedule or faces costly redesigns and retesting cycles.

Smart lab selection requires understanding accreditation credentials, international recognition schemes, and technical competence with the standard's unique approach. This guide helps hardware manufacturers avoid compliance missteps by identifying what separates qualified laboratories from the rest.

‍

Key Points

• Verify laboratory accreditation through International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17025 and International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) signatory status to ensure international acceptance of test results across multiple markets without retesting.
• Check whether the laboratory participates in international recognition systems such as the Certification Body (CB) Scheme to streamline global certification and reduce duplicate testing.  .
• Assess technical competence in hazard-based safety engineering, including staff training in energy source classification and safeguard evaluation methodologies specific to IEC 62368-1.
• Factor in total project costs beyond base testing fees, including potential redesign expenses, project management charges, and realistic certification timelines that vary by product complexity and laboratory capacity.
• Prioritize labs offering pre-testing consultation and technical support to identify potential issues early, reducing the risk of costly redesign cycles and testing failures.
• Develop a structured Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Quotation (RFQ) process to compare laboratories on both technical merit and total project value, ensuring transparent cost, capability, and timeline evaluations.
• Establish a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as turnaround time, report accuracy, and communication responsiveness to maintain consistent lab performance.

Verifying Laboratory Accreditation and ILAC Recognition

Before verifying accreditation, it’s important to understand the nature of IEC 62368-1 testing itself.

This hazard-based safety standard governs audio/video, information technology, and communication equipment, replacing the legacy IEC 60950-1 and IEC 60065 standards. Rather than relying on rigid construction rules, it focuses on identifying potential energy sources that could cause harm and defining safeguards to prevent injury or damage.

Under this approach, laboratories must evaluate energy categories such as electrical, chemical, mechanical, thermal, and radiation sources – along with related hazards like fire and burns.

A complete IEC 62368-1 test program typically includes:

• Power supply evaluation – verifying protection against electrical hazards
• Component assessment – ensuring safety-critical parts meet requirements
• Construction review – analyzing spacing, insulation, and materials
• Marking and labeling verification – confirming correct safety information

Because these evaluations are complex, laboratory accreditation provides objective evidence that a facility operates competently and produces reliable results. The foundation is ISO/IEC 17025, which specifies requirements for testing and calibration laboratory competence.

ILAC signatory verification ensures international acceptance of test results. It maintains mutual recognition agreements between accreditation bodies, enabling test certificates from one country to be accepted in others without retesting.

When verifying ILAC recognition, laboratories should:

• Confirm ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation through recognized bodies such as the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB)
• Check the ILAC signatory database for accreditation body status
• Review the laboratory’s scope of accreditation to ensure IEC 62368-1 coverage
• Verify maintenance history and watch for any suspended credentials

Working with an accredited, ILAC-recognized lab ensures your test results are accepted by regulatory authorities, certification bodies, and global customers without the need for redundant evaluations.

Accreditation validates procedural reliability – the next step is assessing the lab’s technical competence, which determines the quality of the testing itself.

Assessing Technical Competence with Hazard-Based Electrical Safety Standard

Technical competence in hazard-based electrical safety testing requires specialized expertise beyond traditional product testing. Laboratories must demonstrate proficiency in applying IEC 62368-1’s hazard-based principles – particularly in classifying energy sources, assessing safeguards, and evaluating risk.

UL Solutions emphasizes that hazard-based safety standards focus on identifying and mitigating risks rather than providing prescriptive requirements. This demands engineers with deep understanding of the standard's philosophical approach and practical application.

Key competence indicators include:

• Personnel training in Hazard-Based Safety Engineering (HBSE) principles
• Experience with energy source classification across all six hazard categories
• Understanding of safeguard effectiveness evaluation methods
• Familiarity with accessibility determination and risk assessment procedures

Once you’ve confirmed these foundational competencies, assess how the laboratory applies them in practice:

• Review staff qualifications and IEC 62368-1 training certifications
• Examine the portfolio of similar product testing experience
• Check participation in IEC technical committees or standards development
• Confirm the lab’s ability to provide pre-testing consultation and design guidance

Independent testing removes potential bias and enhances transparency throughout the supply chain. Choose laboratories that demonstrate both technical competence and commitment to unbiased assessment of your product's safety compliance.

Comparing Service Quality and Project Management Capabilities

Laboratory service evaluation extends beyond technical competence to encompass customer support, communication, and project management capabilities that directly impact testing success. Effective project management helps laboratories maintain schedules and coordinate complex testing requirements.

Evaluate laboratories based on:

• Responsiveness to technical inquiries and pre-testing consultation availability
• Dedicated project manager assignment for complex testing programs
• Clear communication protocols for test progress updates and issue resolution
• Experience with similar product categories and understanding of market requirements

Another critical service factor is turnaround time. While some labs may offer expedited services, realistic timelines for Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) certification typically require several weeks to a few months from sample delivery to completion. Laboratories promising unrealistic schedules often compromise quality or encounter delays that impact your market entry timeline. Select partners who balance speed with reliability to maintain both schedule integrity and testing accuracy.

RFP/RFQ Playbook for Test Labs

Selecting a testing partner often goes beyond technical evaluation into formal procurement. A well-structured RFP or RFQ ensures laboratories bid on equal terms and disclose their full capabilities.

To ensure fair comparisons and comprehensive proposals, include the following elements in your RFP or RFQ:

• Scope definition: Identify applicable product categories, standards (e.g., IEC 62368-1 4th Edition), and intended markets.
• Timeline expectations: Specify sample readiness dates and expected certification windows.
• Documentation requirements: Request copies of ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, ILAC signatory evidence, and CB Scheme scope.
• Technical capabilities: Ask for details on hazard-based safety engineering experience, energy source classification training, and similar project references.
• Commercial terms: Require itemized pricing that separates base testing, re-testing, and project-management fees.

During evaluation, compare proposals on both technical merit and total value, not lowest cost. Labs that provide pre-testing consultation, transparent reporting, and flexible scheduling often deliver faster certification and fewer redesign cycles.

Cost Analysis and Value Considerations for IEC 62368-1 Testing Labs

Testing laboratory cost structure encompasses more than initial testing fees. Comprehensive cost analysis must include potential rework expenses, timeline impacts, and total project value to avoid budget overruns and delays.

MET Labs notes that pricing for Underwriters Laboratories (UL)/Canadian Standards Association (CSA)/European Norm (EN)/IEC 62368 certification bundles varies based on product complexity, component certification requirements, and testing scope.

Key cost factors to consider include:

• Base testing fees and component certification costs
• Project management and technical support charges
• Potential redesign and retesting expenses if initial attempts fail
• Timeline acceleration fees for expedited testing schedules

Beyond direct costs, true value lies in how effectively a laboratory helps prevent downstream failures.

Experienced laboratories provide pre-testing consultation that identifies potential issues before formal testing begins, reducing the likelihood of expensive redesign cycles.

For additional support, independent compliance advisors often complement traditional testing laboratories by offering unbiased guidance and strategic planning. They assist manufacturers in navigating complex regulatory requirements, providing insights that testing laboratories, focused primarily on testing and certification, may not offer due to their different roles.

SLA & KPI Framework

Once a laboratory is selected, maintaining consistent performance requires a clear SLA supported by measurable KPIs.

Typical SLA components include:

• Turnaround time: Agreed completion window from sample receipt to report delivery (e.g., 6–8 weeks).
• Communication frequency: Weekly status updates and defined escalation contacts.
• Quality assurance: Commitment to ISO/IEC 17025 compliance and corrective-action transparency if deviations occur.
• Data confidentiality: Protection of proprietary design information during and after testing.

Relevant KPIs to monitor include:

• First-pass test success rate (% of units passing without retest)
• Report accuracy and on-time delivery rates
• Responsiveness to technical inquiries (average response time)
• Customer satisfaction or post-project review scores

Tracking these indicators enables manufacturers to benchmark multiple labs, justify renewal decisions, and identify process improvements over time.

‍

Conclusion

Selecting the right IEC 62368-1 testing laboratory requires a balanced evaluation of accreditation, technical expertise, service quality, and overall project value. A well-chosen partner not only accelerates certification but also enhances design reliability and regulatory confidence across markets.

By investing in careful laboratory selection and performance management, manufacturers can strengthen compliance efficiency, reduce costly rework, and maintain a competitive edge in global hardware certification.

‍