Facility information:
Facility Name
Accreditation Number
Site Number (if known)
Assessment Activity (eg reassessment, extension to scope)
Date of Assessment Activity
1. Management and delivery of accreditation related actvities
  Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree Not Applicable
a) I have been contacted by the person designated as client co-ordinator of our accreditation and their role explained
b) has the appointed person handled any general communications you may have had e.g. Regarding NATA processes
c) has their appointment lead to a minimisation of duplication of the assessment of your management system
d) has the client co-ordinator facilitated assessment visits, e.g. joint visits previously undertaken unilaterally
2. Were the arrangements for the assessment activity reasonably negotiated with you?
3. Was the Members Portal useful in facilitating the accreditation process?
4. Were the NATA staff effective and professional in dealing with you and your staff?
5. The time the assessment team spent on site was:
  Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
a) well organised and used effectively
b) was in accordance with the sampling plan
c) provided adequate coverage of the facility's competency areas as defined in the scope of accreditation
6. Did the selected technical assessor(s) display appropriate technical knowledge?
7. Was the interim report left at the end of the visit of a sufficient standard to enable you to act on its findings, in lieu of receipt of the confirmed report?
8. Were assessment findings clearly linked to accreditation requirements?
9. Did the exit meeting provide an opportunity to discuss findings with the assessment team?
10. Did NATA respond to your submissions within an acceptable time frame and clearly communicate any requests for additional information?
11. Were the needs of your business met by NATA's delivery of this assessment activity?
12. Please use this section to provide information in relation to responses given.