Amtivo is rushing to remove all web evidence of its Activ Certify software products after receipt of a formal complaint by Oxebridge alleging violations of ISO 17021-1. That standard prohibits a certification body from selling consulting products or services, even as the Amtivo Activ Certify product has been marked by Amtivo as being used to replace a consultant.
Meanwhile, Amtivo has still not responded to the formal complaint as required, prompting another potential accreditation violation.
Activ Certify as Consulting Product
ISO 17021-1 not only prohibits Amtivo from providing consulting products or services, but also from claiming that any specific consultancy would result in ISO certification being simpler, faster, or less expensive. The marketing for Activ Certify by Amtivo appears to have violated all three of these restrictions. On a page for Activ Certify, the promotion clearly states that this will make certification “simple,” and “save valuable time and money.”
Activ Certify appears to have originally been the product of the UK certification body British Assessment Bureau (BAB), which was bought by Amtivo as part of its acquisition push into the certification industry. To date, Amtivo has purchased about a dozen small to medium CBs, using funds from venture capital firm Charterhouse Capital.
Despite ISO 17021-1 prohibiting a CB from selling such products or services, BAB apparently was able to do so for years even as the British accreditation body UKAS was supposed to have been policing their actions. A website for Activ Certify, which is still live, links the product with BAB specifically. After the purchase of BAB by Amtivo, the site was then re-branded using the Amtivo name.
Since the complaint by Oxebridge, Amtivo is attempting to craft a new marketing campaign that will downplay the consulting aspects of Activ Certify. Marketing reps are allegedly preparing to argue that Activ Certify does not provide template documents nor any actual ISO 9001 elements that Amtivo would later assess during ISO 9001 audits. However, this contradicts the language used to market a host of Activ Certify products being sold under the Amtivo and BAB names. For example, on the current page for the Activ products, the “Activ Certify Plus” product is marketed as including many elements prohibited by ISO 17021-1.
The page then goes on to say you can “create” a full QMS using their “Activ Select” product.
That page bears the Amtivo name and directly references both UKAS and the British Assessment Bureau (BAB), which Amtivo now owns:
Amtivo Deletes the Evidence
Amtivo has refused to acknowledge the complaint filed by Oxebridge, a mandatory step under ISO 17021-1’s rules for complaints handling, in what is becoming a new tactic by CBs accused of violations. AS9100 certification body IAPMO SCB worked to erase all copies of a public webinar recording in which two clients accidentally revealed the body had issued formal AS9100 certificates under possibly fraudulent conditions.
So long as a CB does not “acknowledge receipt” of a complaint, they can keep the matter from appearing in their internal corrective action system and thus prevent the clock from starting on a resolution, while attempting to mask the issue from their oversight accreditation body.
The latter argument is moot, however, since Oxebridge sent copies of the complaint to Amtivo’s three accreditation bodies: ANAB (USA), UKAS (UK), and INAB (Ireland.)
Despite this attempt to avoid the complaint in an official capacity, Oxebridge has learned that Amtivo is scrambling to delete all evidence of Activ Certify, although appears to be bungling the attempt.
On the websites for Amtivo USA and its recently-obtaind ISO9001.com domain, all references to Activ Cerify have been deleted. However, the product has been sold on so many Amtivo-branded websites around the world, the company appears to have only scratched the surface with its recent attempts.
Deleting references to Activ Certify does not negate the complaint, which argues that Amtivo should never have offered it in the first place. Accreditation bodies like UKAS and ANAB would be required to investigate how many Activ Certify software buyers were then certified by Amtivo and demand that either new audits be performed or the clients be transferred to an alternate CB without such conflicts of interest.
The length of time that Activ Certify was sold under accreditation banners of ANAB, UKAS and INAB also raises questions about the validity of the IAF accreditation scheme, as the bodies should have taken action on this problem years ago. IAF member bodies routinely ignore such matters, however, as they are paid by the certification bodies they are supposed to police.
In the case of IAPMO SCB, for example, ANAB’s Lori Gillespie dropped the complaint even after providing evidence of how SCB had deleted the evidence. She then attempted to get Oxebridge to delete evidence of ANAB’s response, saying the email was “confidential” and could not be reproduced.
Amtivo Rep Goes Rogue
Making matters worse for Amtivo, its US representative appears to have gone rogue and tried to dilute the importance of the complaint by suggesting Oxebridge has a conflict of interest or was outright lying.
David Gawlak of Amtivo USA sent a series of increasingly berating emails to Oxebridge founder Christopher Paris, first suggesting that reports of unhappy Amtivo clients were not supported by evidence. Gawlak, who previously worked for the certification body ASR, also purchased by Amtivo, insisted he could not find any such records. The complaints received by Oxebridge about Amtivo, however, came from various countries and were not necessarily former ASR clients. Furthermore, Oxebridge was not authorized to reveal confidential client information to Gawlak.
Gawlak then raised the head by implying Paris was being hypocritical for not pursuing a complaint against KSQA, another US certification body. Gawlak revealed that about year ago, KSQA had posted a graphic on LinkedIn claiming it offered both consulting and certification. However, unlike the products sold by Amtivo which were marketed directly on the Amtivo certification website, the webpage for KSQA overtly stated that KSQA did not provide consulting. This suggested that it was only the graphic in the LinkedIn post that was incorrect, as there would be no way for someone to actually purchase consulting from KSQA even if they wanted to.
Nevertheless, Oxebridge notified KSQA, and within ten minutes, KSQA pulled the graphic and clarified that its marketing agency had confused the words “consulting” and “certification.”
Paris then challenged Gawlak to apply the same level of speed and rigor in the complaint filed with it related to Activ Certify. Gawlak ignored the suggestion, instead doubling down on the allegation that Oxebridge was choosing who to “prosecute“:
Tough being the judge and jury of the certification industry. When to prosecute and when not too [sic].
Paris then escalated Gawlak’s emails to Amtivo corporate management, prompting him to backpedal by saying he was just “poking fun.” Amtivo’s management again did not respond at all to the matter.
It’s not clear why Gawlak thought the accusations would prompt the Activ Certify matter to disappear.
In contrast, a complaint filed against Amtivo’s competitor, Intertek, related to a similar conflict of interest, was answered in just a few days; Intertek reports it is formally addressing the matter.
Oxebridge has given Amtivo a deadline for formally responding to the complaint, or it will be escalated to the various accreditation bodies.
