Federal Contract Records Reveal ANAB's 14 Year Accreditation Identity Breakdown: DOS 19AQMM18R0131 (2018) and DOJ 15F06725C0000139 (2025)

STRATFORD, Conn. - April 30, 2026 - PRLog -- Introduction

This release presents documented evidence showing that accreditation identities retired in 2004 and 2014 continued to appear on certificates, scopes, and compliance documents used in federal contracting as late as 2018 and 2025. The persistence of a defunct accreditation identity — "ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board" — represents a breakdown in traceability, governance, and oversight within the U.S.and Worldwide accreditation systems . The The GUBERMAN Anomaly-Discovery. Guberman Anomaly https://guberman-quality.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/GUBERMAN-ANOMALY-FEBRUARY-2026.docx.pdf " Illustrates how these outdated accreditation bodies continued to operate across multiple contracts and agencies up to and including the Boeing Supplier Portal.

Section 1 — The 2004 ANSI Announcement: End of ANSI–RAB NAP

On November 30, 2004, ANSI formally announced that the ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) would replace the ANSI–RAB National Accreditation Program (NAP) effective January 1, 2005. This transition marked the official end of ANSI–RAB NAP and the beginning of the ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB).

This document establishes the first major identity change in the accreditation lineage.

Section 2 — The 2014 ANSI Announcement: Retirement of the ANSI–ASQ Name

On December 15, 2014, ANSI announced a consolidation to a single ANAB brand, retiring the names:

• ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board
• ACLASS
• FQS

This announcement confirms that the "ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board" identity was retired and no longer valid for use after 2014.

Section 3 — The 2018 Ownership Change

In 2018, ASQ divested its ownership stake, leaving ANSI as the sole owner of ANAB. This eliminated the "ASQ" component entirely, making the continued use of the "ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board" identity structurally impossible.

Yet the U.S. Department of State's 2018 contract (No. 19AQMM18R0131) still received certifications referencing this defunct accreditation body.

Section 4 — The 2025 DOJ Contract

In 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (Contract No. 15F06725C0000139) also received certifications referencing the same obsolete accreditation identity — more than a decade after its official retirement.

This demonstrates that the problem was not isolated, accidental, or limited to a single agency.

Section 5 — Boeing's Continued Use of a Defunct Accreditation Identity (As of April 30, 2026 at 3:09 PM EDT)

As of April 30, 2026 at 3:09 PM, Boeing's official supplier portal continues to designate the required accreditation body as the "ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB)" — an identity that was:

• Replaced in 2004
• Retired in 2014
• Legally dissolved in 2018

This means Boeing is still calling out an accreditation body that no longer exists and has not existed for over a decade.

This creates a direct conflict between:

• The OEM requirement (Boeing demanding a defunct accreditation body)
  
  
• The registrar's accreditation (registrars issuing certificates under the correct, modern ANAB)
  
  
• The supplier's compliance obligations (suppliers forced to choose between a dead accreditation identity and a valid one)

Section 5.1 — The Supplier Confusion and Compliance Trap

Suppliers attempting to comply with Boeing's requirements face an impossible situation:

• If they follow Boeing's portal, they must present certification from the defunct ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board — which no registrar can legally provide.
  
  
• If they follow the registrar, they receive certification under ANAB, the correct and current accreditation body.
  
  
• When they submit the ANAB certificate, Boeing's portal appears to contradict it by referencing the obsolete ANSI–ASQ identity.

This creates a compliance paradox:

Is the registrar wrong for issuing ANAB?

Or is Boeing wrong for requiring a dead accreditation body?

Or is the entire accreditation system failing to maintain traceability?

The supplier has no way to resolve this contradiction because the conflict is built into the system itself.

Section 5.2 — The Systemic Implication

This is not a clerical error.

This is not a one‑off oversight.

This is a systemic traceability failure that:

• Undermines certificate validity
• Creates regulatory ambiguity
• Forces suppliers into non‑compliant positions
• Exposes OEMs to procurement risk
• Demonstrates a breakdown in accreditation governance

When an OEM as large as Boeing continues to call out a defunct accreditation body 12 years after its retirement, the integrity of the entire accreditation ecosystem is called into question.

Section 6 — The Systemic Traceability Failure (Federal + OEM Combined)

Despite:

• The 2004 replacement of ANSI–RAB NAP
• The 2014 retirement of the ANSI–ASQ National Accreditation Board name
• The 2018 dissolution of the ANSI–ASQ partnership
  
  
• The 2026 Boeing portal still calling out the defunct identity (April 30, 2026) https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/become/quality/faq#accordion-a26ad9a916-item-8202308774

Quality Requirements & Information

Will third party approval be recognized by Boeing

Boeing Quality Management System Requirements for Suppliers Frequently Asked Questions

Certified quality management systems to AS 9100, AS 9110 and AS 9120 may be utilized by Boeing for approval if:

• Certification Body is accredited for these quality management system by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) or international equivalent;
• Certificate of registration is to SAE AS 9104 and certified supplier is listed in the IAQG OASIS database and in good standing.

The accreditation system allowed — or failed to prevent — the use of a nonexistent accreditation identity for more than a decade.

This represents:

• A breakdown in accreditation governance
• A failure of oversight
• A traceability breach
• A misrepresentation of authority
• A risk to federal and aerospace supply chains

Conclusion

The 2004 and 2014 ANSI documents are not historical artifacts — they are evidence. Evidence that the accreditation system permitted the use of a dead identity long after its official retirement. The persistence of this defunct accreditation name across federal contracts in 2018 and 2025 — and on Boeing's supplier portal in 2026 — exposes a systemic failure in traceability and governance.

This release establishes the timeline, the contradictions, and the need for immediate review of accreditation oversight practices.

CALL TO ACTION

Every stakeholder must demand answers from ANSI–ANAB leadership:

• Gail Matthews, General Counsel — 202‑293‑8020 / 212‑642‑4977
• Doug Leonard, Business Development — 260‑413‑5104
• Patricia Griffin, Executive Leadership — 212‑642‑4954

Contact each of your designated Registrars.

Be prepared:

• Your registrar may not know what you're talking about.
• They may attempt to dismiss the issue.
• They may even disparage the name Daryl Guberman — because the GUBERMAN Anomaly exposes the foundation they rely on.

By being ANAB accredited or international equivalent, you were unaware of the federal contract FRAUD. This will undoubtedly cause harm to your business.

Call your attorney.

Then call Daryl Guberman — 203‑556‑1493.

"All who rise while burying the truth will one day be buried by it."
-Anonymous (proverbial wisdom)