I agree that when working to a code it would be questionable. But how many one man shops do you think have certifications that would require an audit? I guess it could be required by the auditor of the shop that is contracting the one man shop.
Like the original poster who is looking over a sub's paperwork......
Something else that came to mind....if you hire on a sub, you could make them submit to a test, if you didn't feel like the documentation was substantial enough to support their continuity, and then if they were on the job long enough, you could keep your own maintenance log on them. I'm guessing that when a rig rolls up on most jobsites, somebody tests these people before letting them weld on the job, or either makes certain they have proper documentation. After all if you hire them, you are responsible for the welding that takes place, so you might want to be certain that you don't have a problem with their ability to place sound weld before they get started.
I would say a one man shop would have to take extra steps to answer the ethical/auditor concerns. I don't think it's required, but in my personal experience, they usually will call in someone else to do that for them to avoid the audit issues. If it cost 400 bucks every six months it would be a cheap option to avoid the auditors / questionable practice.
Hogan, as far as AWS goes, there isn't any requirement that says a one person contractor can't verify their own continuity. As far as I have been able to assertain, all that they are required to produce is a signed letter (preferably on their letterhead) stating that they have used that particular process in each six month period since they last tested. Section 4.1.3.1 in D1.1 only states "use of process" , not position. Of coarse, the more documentation, the less appearence of impropriety there is, and I stress the "appearence of impropriety" part of that. A single hand operation is a subcontrator and the contractor is responsible for blah, blah, blah. But, yeh, your right.-Wayne