Amtivo Appears to Be Dropping its “Certify” QMS Software Package

In what, for the moment, appears to be a significant victory for the Oxebridge ISO Whistleblower Reporting program, Amtivo appears to have abandoned its QMS consulting software package. But a lot of things have happened behind the scenes in recent months, and Amtivo appears to have tried different approaches to salvage its reputation.

This announcement comes on the heels of our announcement last week that the ISO Whistleblower Reporting Program has been shut down after 15 years of operation, a move forced by UKAS and the IAF’s global branding of whistleblower reports as “vexatious.” Now, under the new policies, any IAF member accreditation body, or even certification bodies, can throw out a legitimate complaint without any action at all, purely based on an arbitrary decision by the receiving part that the complainant is “vexatious.” The policies don’t adopt common court definitions, but instead allow the body to make up any excuse they want to delete the complaint.

Just prior to the shutdown of the program, Oxebridge filed a high-profile complaint against Amtivo for selling QMS consulting software, which it referred to at the time as ActivCertify. We then found out that the British Assessment Bureau (BAB) had been selling ActivCertify for at least ten years prior, with the blessing of UKAS. This, despite the fact that it is an open violation of ISO 17021-1, which prohibits certification bodies from selling QMS services or products.

Amtivo purchased BAB and then took over the sale of ActivCertify, which led to the Oxebridge complaint.

Amtivo Struggles with a Response

The responses by Amtivo were uncoordinated and disjointed, suggesting chaos behind the scenes. First, Amtivo ‘s US representative, David Gawlak, attacked me personally, suggesting I go after other CBs who were doing worse things. He suggested I was a hypocrite for going after Amtivo specifically, but never explained that line of reasoning any further. This seemed to suggest that Amtivo was refusing to take any action at all on the matter.

Around the same time, however, Amtivo was deleting references to ActivCertify from various websites, something the higher-ups at Amtivo had not apparently told Gawlak. The Amtivo organization continued to refuse to respond to the complaint, however, even as it tried to delete the evidence.

Then, an insider reported that discussions were underway at Amtivo — discussions which may have included UKAS (but this isn’t clear) — on how to rebrand ActivCertify as a mere tool for pre-assessments or for clients to determine if they were ready for a final ISO 9001 audit. One of the arguments Amtivo considered presenting is that the Oxbridge reporting was entirely wrong, and that ActivCertify did not actually provide “consulting” at all. The problem here is that both BAB and Amtivo had spent over ten years collectively claiming the very opposite, that ActivCertify could literally replace a “consultant.” And we screenshotted nearly all of those claims, anticipating Amtivo might try this scam.

Finally, Amtivo responded to the complaint but only by acknowledging receipt. Months later, they had still not provided any update. The various Amtivo websites had been updated and the software was rebranded as “Certify,” with most of the product’s details removed. The revised marketing language no longer claimed it replaced a consultant, but provided no real details at all on what the product was intended to do. Given that the product was likely the same exact one originally offered by BAB, it appeared Amtivo was trying to be cute and just change the marketing, but was still selling QMS consulting software.

On May 29th, I wrote to them again and pointed out that they were overdue to provide some update, and I provided links to various websites showing the ongoing sale of Certify.

Now, on June 13, Amtivo has provided this formal update. This is the entirety of their message, mind you:

This complaint has been formally investigated and closed out by UKAS. Amtivo are actively working with ANAB to set up a review meeting in order for them to assess the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken.

Remember that it was UKAS that blessed the sale of ActivCertify by BAB in the first place. Had UKAS done its job ten years ago, this scandal would never have emerged.

I did a check today, and it now seems that all references to any software package at all have been removed from all Amtivo websites. (Although there are so many Amtivo websites, registered in multiple countries as well as legacy BAB sites, I may not have been able to check them all.) This included the links I sent in my May 29th email, so despite their lack of details on what their response was, they were apparently using my input to help them scrub the internet clean of all evidence.

So, for now, it seems Amtivo’s response has been to silently admit they did screw up, that ActivCertify / Certify was a consulting product after all, and it was just a better option to stop selling it. Again, something they should have done years ago.

UKAS is fine with signing off on the decision because it removes them from the equation. But we already know that UKAS was previously fine with BAB/Amtivo selling Certify in the first place. So the UKAS signoff now is meaningless.

As for ANAB, they are likely to take the same posture if Amtivo has really stopped selling Certify.

The Irish accreditation body that also accredits Amtivo, called INAB, hasn’t been mentioned at all, nor have they responded to any emails on the matter. They apparently got UKAS’ memo to ban all communications to Oxebridge. Good little doggy, Ireland, obeying your London masters.

ANAB in the Soup

Now ANAB finds itself in a sticky situation. After the announcement that the certification body LRQA purchased outright the consulting firm Core Business Solutions, and is now certifying the clients of its own consulting services, I wrote to ANAB VP Lori Gillespie. I asked to talk to her on the phone, since years of email communication with her were not getting us anywhere. I invited Gillespie to explain to me — again, on the phone — how I was misinterpreting ISO 17021-1 and why ANAB was allowing companies like Amtivo and LRQA to sell consulting services. She agreed to speak to me and said she’d get back to me with dates for a phone call. That was exactly one month ago, on May 14th. She never responded again. (No one should be surprised by that.)

What was shocking, however, was that in her last email, she wrote, “Let me look at your email, do a little research, as I know this topic has come up from time to time, as has how ANAB v other ABs handled it.” That should concern everyone. If you are the VP of an accreditation body and literally the person who took over from Randy Dougherty, you should know ISO 17021-1 like the back of your hand. You should not need to “do a little research” on whether CBs can consult or not.

What she was really doing was searching back for ANAB’s justifications for not having taken action in these cases.

So if ANAB accepts Amtivo’s response, this puts the LRQA/Core Solutions deal into the spotlight. ANAB will have a hard time justifying not taking action in that case if they endorse a decision by a CB to divest its consulting products.

But LRQA has a lot more money than Amtivo, so there’s no way ANAB will hold them accountable.

As for Amtivo, we can’t know for sure what they are going to do in the long term. This could all be a temporary move where they pull Certify from the market for now, work behind the scenes to complete a new marketing campaign, and then release it five minutes later. The efforts by IAF’s Victor Gandy and UKAS’ Matt Gantley to finally eradicate the rules prohibiting CBs from consulting are still underway, so perhaps Amtivo is waiting for that to happen.

Either way, it does appear that the ISO Whistleblower Program scored a temporary victory, even if it was while the program was on its deathbed.

I’ll take the “W” while I can.