Thanks Joe. I found their website and discovered they require quarterly audits as well, as opposed to the annual review of AISC.
I for myself do not oppose quarterly or even unannounced audits (no honest system should-theoretically), but it depends on the comprehensiveness of the review process, since accomodating such a review requires tremendous recources in time and personnel, and certainly costs as well. And resources that will have to be shifted at a moments notice when they come knocking (not to mention that they may show up on the very day you are dealing with AISC, UL(another quarterly unannounced review body), FM, or whatever other review body you are having to deal with-based upon a recent expereince in which UL showed up on AISC review day-we had to defer the UL audit-and of course pay for it any way-how conveninet for them). This is a real economic burden, and one not to be taken lightly by businesses. If the monetary reward for participation is not justifiable then the burden of review will be rejected.
And so the question has to be asked, especially since my understandsing thus far is that IAS, similar to ISO, is QA/QC oriented and not engineering oriented as is AISC. So, the question is, does all this review and surprise actually make the buildings safer? I'm not convinced a postive answer can be defended unscathed. It can be argued, as has been argued against ISO (a standing joke for all who have been involved in ISO type reviews) that its dog and pony show stuff. You can build crap as long as you build your crap in accordance with your crap building QA program.
At least this is my sense thus far, and obviously based upon ISO experience.