How to Choose a Testing Laboratory | Auriga Research

Choosing a testing laboratory is one of the most consequential quality management decisions a business makes. The accuracy of your test results affects product release decisions, regulatory compliance, product liability, and ultimately consumer safety. Yet many organizations select laboratories primarily on price or familiarity, without verifying the technical factors that determine result reliability.

This guide provides a systematic framework for evaluating and selecting a testing laboratory — whether for pharmaceutical, food, water, environmental, or other testing needs.

Why Laboratory Selection Matters

The consequences of choosing an inadequate laboratory extend far beyond a bad report:

Regulatory rejection: Test data from laboratories that lack required accreditations or approvals will not be accepted by regulatory authorities. CDSCO will not accept pharmaceutical data from non-GLP laboratories. FSSAI requires testing by notified laboratories. Building a dossier with non-compliant data means starting over.

Incorrect results: Poor analytical practices produce inaccurate results. A product that fails quality specifications may be incorrectly released (false negative). A compliant product may be incorrectly rejected (false positive). Both outcomes have serious consequences — patient harm or waste.

Liability exposure: If a product causes harm and the test results used for release are later found to be from an inadequate laboratory, the business bears greater liability.

Product recalls: Contamination that a competent laboratory would have detected — but an inadequate one missed — leading to market recalls, regulatory action, and reputational damage.

The investment in proper laboratory selection and verification is trivial compared to these risks.

Key Selection Criteria

1. Accreditation Status

Accreditation is the starting point — not the ending point — of laboratory verification. Key accreditations to verify:

NABL (National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories) NABL under ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is India’s primary laboratory accreditation scheme. NABL-accredited test reports are accepted by regulatory authorities, courts, and international buyers under the ILAC MRA (which covers 90+ countries).

What to verify:

• Current validity of the NABL certificate (check nabl-india.org — do not rely only on a copy from the lab)
• The specific scope of accreditation — which tests, methods, and matrices are actually accredited
• That your required test is within scope, not just a related area

A laboratory may be NABL-accredited for heavy metals in pharmaceutical products but not in cosmetics. The certificate scope determines what is actually covered.

FSSAI Notification Food businesses requiring regulatory compliance testing must use FSSAI-notified laboratories under Section 43 of the FSS Act. Check the FSSAI notified lab list for your food category.

WHO Prequalification For pharmaceutical products submitted to WHO prequalification, data from WHO-prequalified quality control laboratories is required. The WHO publishes its list of prequalified labs.

GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) GLP certification under OECD principles is required for safety studies (toxicology, ecotoxicology, environmental fate) used in regulatory submissions. Not the same as general laboratory quality — it is a specific standard for regulatory safety study data.

BIS Recognition For products requiring BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) certification, testing must come from BIS-recognized laboratories.

2. Scope of Accreditation vs. Claims

A laboratory’s accreditation scope and its technical capabilities are two different things. The scope is what has been independently verified. Beyond the scope, the laboratory is making unverified technical claims.

Always ask: “Is this specific test (by this method, for this matrix) within your NABL scope?” If the answer is no, request an explanation of what quality assurance applies to out-of-scope tests. This is acceptable in limited circumstances (new methods under development, very specialized tests) but should be transparent.

Avoid laboratories that present a general NABL certificate but cannot clarify which specific tests are accredited.

3. Equipment Capabilities

Match the laboratory’s analytical equipment to your testing needs:

Testing Need	Equipment Required
Heavy metals at sub-ppb	ICP-MS
Multi-residue pesticides	LC-MS/MS, GC-MS/MS
Pharmaceutical assay and impurities	HPLC, LC-MS/MS
Residual solvents in pharma	GC-FID, headspace GC
Microbiological testing	BSL-2 class cabinets, autoclave, incubators
Stability testing	ICH-qualified stability chambers
Dissolution testing (pharma)	Validated dissolution apparatus

Ask to see the equipment list and verify calibration status. Equipment with expired calibrations is a basic quality failure. Ask whether instruments are qualified (IQ/OQ/PQ for regulated industries) or calibrated (more general).

4. Industry-Specific Experience

Technical competence in analytical methods must be matched with experience in your industry:

• Pharmaceutical testing requires understanding of pharmacopoeial methods (USP, IP, BP, EP), ICH guidelines, and CDSCO/FDA/EMA regulatory expectations
• Food testing requires familiarity with FSSAI regulations, Codex Alimentarius standards, and the specific matrices (high-fat products, spices, dairy) that challenge analytical methods
• Environmental testing requires understanding of CPCB regulatory requirements, field sampling for stack emissions and ambient air, and chain-of-custody for water samples

Ask for examples of similar work — same product type, same regulatory context. A pharmaceutical testing specialist may not have appropriate food testing experience, and vice versa.

5. Turnaround Time

Standard turnaround times vary by test type:

• Microbiological testing: 3-7 working days (incubation periods are unavoidable)
• Chemical analysis: 3-10 working days depending on complexity
• Stability samples: Analysis within 1-2 days of scheduled time point (strict for regulatory validity)
• Pesticide multi-residue: 5-10 working days

Confirm the TAT in writing, not as a verbal commitment. Ask about the laboratory’s procedure when TAT commitments cannot be met — do they proactively notify, and what compensation applies?

For time-critical situations (import clearance, product launch), ask about expedited services — most labs can prioritize for a premium.

6. Sample Handling Procedures

Chain of Custody (CoC) The laboratory should document sample receipt, storage conditions, and handling from the moment samples arrive. A formal CoC system is essential for:

• Regulatory submissions (results must be traceable to a specific lot/batch)
• Legal proceedings
• Import clearance documentation

Ask for a copy of the laboratory’s sample receipt and handling procedure.

Cold Chain Capability For temperature-sensitive samples (stability samples, certain food products, biologicals), verify the laboratory can maintain appropriate conditions from receipt through testing. This includes refrigerators, freezers, and validated temperature monitoring.

Sample Volume Requirements Different tests require different sample amounts. Confirm requirements before sampling — arriving at the laboratory with insufficient sample quantity is a preventable problem.

7. Reporting Quality

The test report is the deliverable. Evaluate report quality by requesting sample reports:

A good test report includes:

• Clear identification of the sample (name, lot number, date of receipt)
• Test method reference (e.g., “HPLC per USP <621>” or “AOAC 2007.01”)
• Result with units
• Specification or limit (if applicable)
• Pass/fail determination
• Method uncertainty (for NABL-accredited results)
• Signatory with qualification
• NABL logo and accreditation number (if within scope)

Red flags in reports:

• No method reference — how was the test performed?
• No uncertainty stated — what is the confidence range?
• No NABL logo despite claiming NABL accreditation for this test

Questions to Ask Before Sending Samples

Use this checklist when evaluating a new laboratory:

Accreditation and compliance:

• “Can you provide your current NABL certificate and scope of accreditation?”
• “Is [specific test + method + matrix] within your NABL scope?”
• “Are you FSSAI-notified for [food category]?” (if applicable)
• “Have you supported regulatory submissions to [CDSCO/WHO/FDA]?” (if applicable)

Technical capability:

• “What instrument do you use for [specific test]? Is it qualified/calibrated?”
• “Do you have method validation data for this specific matrix?”
• “What proficiency testing programs do you participate in for this test?”

Operations:

• “What is your standard turnaround time for [test]? Can you confirm in writing?”
• “How do you handle out-of-specification (OOS) or unexpected results?”
• “What is your sample handling procedure and chain of custody?”
• “Who is the qualified signatory on test reports?”

Data integrity:

• “Do you use a LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System)?”
• “How is raw data retained and protected?”
• “What is your policy on reprocessing or discarding data?”

Red Flags to Avoid

No visible or verifiable accreditation Claims of ISO certification, NABL accreditation, or regulatory approvals that cannot be verified against official databases are a serious warning sign.

Unclear pricing with no breakdown Pricing should be test-specific. “Package deals” with no per-test pricing can indicate inadequate testing (fewer tests than implied).

Promises of unrealistically fast results Microbiological tests require incubation time. HPLC analysis of complex samples takes time. A lab promising 24-hour results for tests that normally take 5 days either has a genuinely faster method (explain it) or is cutting corners.

Willingness to change results Any suggestion that results can be “adjusted” to pass specifications is fraud. This does happen in poorly regulated markets and exposes the client to enormous liability.

No OOS investigation procedure Every accredited laboratory must have a written out-of-specification investigation procedure. If they have not encountered OOS results and have no procedure, they may be suppressing or dismissing unexpected data.

Unable to provide sample reports Reputable laboratories can provide anonymized sample reports. Refusal to do so makes quality assessment impossible.

The Auriga Research Approach

Auriga Research operates five NABL-accredited laboratories across India — Gurugram, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Ahmedabad. Our accreditations include NABL (ISO/IEC 17025:2017), FSSAI notification, WHO prequalification, and BIS recognition, covering pharmaceutical, food, water, environmental, and cosmetics testing.

Our about us page details our accreditation portfolio, quality management approach, and team qualifications. Our technologies overview shows the analytical platforms supporting our testing capabilities.

For businesses evaluating testing laboratory partners, we welcome the questions in this guide. An informed client asking the right questions is the foundation of a productive, long-term testing relationship.

Contact us to discuss your testing requirements, or request a quote for specific services.

Quick Checklist for Laboratory Selection

Use this at-a-glance checklist when evaluating laboratories:

• NABL certificate verified on nabl-india.org (current, scope confirmed)
• Required tests within NABL scope (not just claimed)
• FSSAI notification verified (for food testing)
• Equipment appropriate for required tests confirmed
• Industry-specific experience demonstrated
• Turnaround time confirmed in writing
• Sample handling and chain-of-custody procedure reviewed
• Sample test report reviewed for quality
• OOS investigation procedure confirmed
• Data integrity systems confirmed (LIMS, audit trails)
• Reference contacts provided (existing clients)

Conclusion

Selecting a testing laboratory requires systematic verification of accreditation scope, equipment capabilities, industry experience, operational procedures, and reporting quality. Price should be a secondary consideration once the technical and compliance baseline is confirmed.

The questions and red flags in this guide give any quality manager the framework to distinguish genuinely capable laboratories from those that only appear capable on the surface. In testing, the difference between a reliable result and an unreliable one is not visible in the report — it is embedded in the methods, equipment, and systems that produced it.