basis used for calibration or verification shall be retained as documented information..." Our article clearly indicates that "“Organizations certified to ISO 9001:2015 must pay close attention to calibration requirements and must use an accredited ISO/IEC 17025 metrology lab or assess the metrology lab’s conformance to ISO/IEC 17025…” using an accredited ISO/IEC 17025 (external or internal)metrology lab or assessing the (external or internal) metrology lab’s (including their own internal calibration processes, if applicable) to ISO/IEC 17025 will satisfy ISO 9001 requirements. Any lab that can provide evidence of performing “calibration or verification of its measuring equipment against measurement standards traceable to international or national measurement standards” is also in compliance to respective ISO/IEC 17025 requirement. With this in mind, there was no error on our part and no error on the part of the editors at Quality Progress.
I don't know any other way to interpret this other than that the lab must be ISO 17025 accredited.
I'm guessing what the authors mean is that the organization should ensure that the labs can provide NIST traceability for calibrations. That's quite different from (additionally) meeting requirements of ISO 17025.
Note: The statement in the abstract would be accurate if it was related to IATF 16949 for the auto industry