
Aggregate CE preparation: compare provider outputs
Aggregate CE preparation: compare provider outputs. Evidence, a conditional example and responsibility boundaries for this preparation purpose.
Scope and decision inputs
Define preparation deliverables by material source, fraction, production site and intended use; distinguish organising evidence from issuing an FPC certificate.
Ask who will decide report acceptability and perform any required body task. A consultant’s quotation does not prove product notification.
Conditional case and response
Hypothetical offer: one quarry package includes testing and a “CE certificate”, but never names the concrete or asphalt specification.
Require the exact output, applicable route, external party and exclusions. Do not purchase an undefined certificate instead of resolving product scope.
Evidence outputs and responsible parties
Accept preparation work through a traceable evidence matrix and a list of unresolved gaps; require truthful records of implemented production controls.
Kayra may coordinate agreed preparation. The manufacturer declares the product; a laboratory or notified body performs its applicable task and decides its own output.
Related service guides
- Aggregate CE: product scope, evidence and production control
- Aggregate assessment: inspect actual production control
- When does aggregate CE apply? Establish use and route
- Aggregate CE questions: report, FPC and project suitability
- EN12620, EN13043, testing and aggregate FPC
- Aggregate CE workflow: resolve scope before declaring
- Who declares aggregates and who assesses FPC?
- Aggregate CE records: link source, sample and declaration
- Aggregate CE cost and time: separate tasks and dependencies
- Verify aggregate declarations and FPC scope
Tell us what you need and our specialists will contact you.
Aggregate CE preparation: compare provider outputs — Send the actual source, fraction, site, use and existing records to discuss the preparation outputs; external decisions remain with the responsible parties.