Competency Mapping

DCPA V2.
0 Audit
### Initial document release per the Management Review 4/16/12.
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012
DCPA V2.0 Audit
(Dynamic Control Plan Audit)
Report Title:
Audit Day: Assessor:
Reason for Audit:
Requested by:
Supplier's Information
Supplier Code:
Supplier Name:
Address:
City, State ZIP Code:

Country:
Supplier's Quality Management System Registration

QMS Registrar Certificate Issue Date
Previous NSA Score: Last NSA Date:
Assessment Result
Products / Product Group Rating Classification
D0 G8D Number:
Authorized Supplier Rep.: Date:
Tel. No. email:
Rev: A
ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012
Auditor: Date:
Rev: A
ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012
DCPA V2.0 Audit
(Dynamic Control Plan Audit)
Opening Meeting Closing Meeting
Audit First Day: Auditor:
Supplier's Information
Supplier Code:
Supplier Name:
City, State ZIP Code:
Name Title Phone Email

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012

Rev: A
24.
25.
ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012

Rev: A
DCPA Pre-Audit
Product Maintenance Issue Review Launch Other
Audit Purpose
Focus of Audit Complete MFG Process Cell Operation Other
DCPA history Dynamic Control Plan Audit Scope

(What do you plan to audit)
Date of Last DCPA
Score
Generate Rapid Response History
Prism 8-D History
Are there open 8-D's ? yes no
If yes list the 8-D number and identify the step the 8D is at
D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8
D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8
Is progress to closure satisfactory yes no
Are there prior closed 8-D's yes no
If yes list8D Number Permanent Corrective Action Summary Or Copy-Paste from Prism
Date: 11/1/2012
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A
Date: 11/1/2012
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A
Scoring
Supplier: Location:
Report: Date:
Assessment Score Evaluation Classification
90 to 100 Acceptable A
80 to less than 90 Improvement Needed B
Less than 80 Unacceptable C
Evaluation of compliance
Points Comments
with individual requirements
Full compliance with Record objective evidence reviewed that supports

10
requirements full compliance.
Deviation from target but without effect on

function. A process problem which may
Predominant compliance
potentially lead to a product nonconformance
8 with requirements, minor
but which is hardly claimed by the internal/
nonconformities
external customer. Record the supporting evidence
reviewed.
A process problem which may potentially lead to

Partial compliance with a product nonconformance and which is not
6 requirements; more severe accepted by the majority of all internal/ external
nonconformities customers. Examples: apparent visual defect,
rework at internal customer. A claim is also to be
expected from customers with a critical attitude.
Unsatisfactory compliance Record the supporting evdence reviewed and the
4 with requirements, major non-conformance observed. (Corrective Action
nonconformities REQUIRED)
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

A process problem which may potentially lead to
a product nonconformance and which will
surely be claimed by all internal/ external
No compliance with customers. Examples: safety risk, missing work
0
requirements steps, damages causing functional disturbances.
Rework at internal customer. Record the non
conformance observed. (Corrective Action
REQUIRED)
Scoring
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

orts
nce
/
nce
d to
ot
rnal
t,
be
de.
he
n
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

d to
l
rk
es.
n
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

DCPA Score Summary
Supplier: Location:
Report: Date:
Dynamic Control Plan

Conformance 60 70 80 90 100
Elements
level %
1. Process Documentation - Overview E1
2. Receiving Inspection E2
3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process E3
4. Final Inspection / Shipping E4
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

B report
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

DCPA Score Summary
Supplier: Location:
Report: Date:
Military Product Audit

1. Process Documentation - Overview
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
E1 ###
2. Receiving Inspection
.1 .2 .3 .4
E2 ###
3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12.13.14.15.16
E3 ###
4. Final Inspection / Shipping

.1 .2 .3
E4 ###
Conformance Level EP (%) per groups of products: EMP (%) = N1*E1 + N2*E2 + N3*E3 + N4*E4 (%)
# of total evaluated elements
C Report
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Audit Notes
Supplier: Location:
Report: Date:
Risk Review: Objective Evidence and Recommendations and Follow-Up
Dynamic Control Plan Summary:
Audit Notes
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Supplier:
Location:
Assessor:
Date:
Technician:
Item Product characteristic Gaging / Test Method Nominal
ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Supplier:
Location:
Assessor:
Date:
Technician:
10
11
12
13
14
15
If Remedial Action required: Hold Tag:
Supplier Concurrence:
Corrective Actions for Minor non-conformance
ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Supplier:
Location:
Assessor:
Date:
Technician:
ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Product Desc.:
Part number:
Lot code: Reme
dical
Mfg. date: Action
Result:
Tolerance Measured Value (s) OK / NG
ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Product Desc.:
Part number:
Lot code: Reme
dical
Mfg. date: Action
Result:
8D or CAR:
Assessor:
for Minor non-conformances:
ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Product Desc.:
Part number:
Lot code: Reme
dical
Mfg. date: Action
Result:
ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Dynamic Control Plan Audit Summary
Elements Questions
1.1 Are the Navistar drawings in use at the correct suffix and revision level?
1.2 Are all technical specifications listed on the Navistar drawing available at the manufacturing location?
1.3 Is the PSW complete and correct?
1. Process Documentation -
1.4 Is the Process Flow Diagram available and correct?
Overview
1.5 Is the PFMEA available and in compliance to AIAG requirements
1.6 Is the Control Plan available and in compliance to AIAG requirements?
1.7 Is there a "Rapid Response" plan?
2.1 What methods are used to verify that incoming materials meet requirements?
2.2 Are incoming materials stored properly?
2.3 Is there a controled process for incoming materials?
2.4 Are receiving inspection records complete?
3.1 Is there a First Piece Inspection process in place?
3.2 Are sample sizes and inspection frequencies for each operation adequate to assure conformance?
3.3 Are operator instructions readily available to the operator for each operation?
3.4 Are work instructions and visual aids appropriate for the level of work being performed?
3.5 Do work instructions include information on the handling of non-conforming material?
3.6 What is the plan to substitute in case of employee absence?
3.7 Are the required gauges available and are they uesd effectively?
3. Workstation /
3.8 Is gauge integrity being managed?
Manufacturing Process
3.9 Does the manufacturing process meet the required capability?
3.10 Does the process control plan call for SPC? Is the data properly recorded?
3.11 Is there evidence that all in-process inspection is complete?
3.13 Are in-process materials managed effectively?
3.14 Are effective error-proofing methods implemented?
3.15 Are special operations utilized? Are they properly controlled?
3.16 Are all areas maintained to enhance productivity and quality?
4.1 Are final inspection activities listed on the control plan?
4. Final Inspection /
4.2 How is conformance to requirements verified at final inspection?
Shipping
4.3 Does the part audited comply with D-13 requirements?
ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Supplier: Open Questions: 30
Location: Answered: 0
DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: Score Distribution:
Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score
Guidance / Suggestions for Objective

Q. Question Comments 0 4 6 8 10
Evidence
1. Process Documentation - Overview
Points of example:
Are the Navistar drawings - Purchase Order
1.1 in use at the correct suffix - Contract requirements 1.1
and revision level? - CAD Search

- Pharos
Are all technical

Points of example:
specifications listed on the
- EMD
1.2 Navistar drawing available 1.2
- CEMS
at the manufacturing
- TMS
location?
Points of example:
- PO
1.3
Is the PSW complete and - Buyer Information 1.3
correct? - Run at Rate
- Full PPAP
- Interim PPAP with action plan
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 26 of 38 Date: 11/01/2012

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Complete a walk-through of the process with the Process Flow
Chart in hand.
Is the Process Flow
Points of example:
1.4 Diagram available and 1.4
- The actual material flow vs. the document
correct?
- Operations not documented
- Changes / new or modified equipment
- Re-work / repair operations
Points of example:
Is the PFMEA available and - Verify that a team approach is used
1.5 in compliance to AIAG - Are the RPN values aligned to AIAG requirements? 1.5
requirements - Are RPN values updated when specifications change or

corrective actions are implemented?
Points of example:
Is the Control Plan
- Are both Product and Process specifications addressed?
available and in
1.6 - Updated when specifications change or corrective actions are 1.6
compliance to AIAG
implemented?
requirements?
- Is the reaction plan up-to-date?

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Points of example:
- Rapid Response history at that supplier
Is there a "Rapid
1.7 - Response time tracking by the supplier 1.7
Response" plan?
- Frequency of Rapid Response issues
- Tracking and analysis of Customer Concerns
Points of example:
What methods are used to
- CoC / CoA
verify that incoming
2.1 - Certs 2.1
materials meet
- PPAP
requirements?
- Physical inspection
Points of example:
- Tagging for conforming and NCM
Are incoming materials
2.2 - FIFO 2.2
stored properly?
- Preservation
- NCM area available and identified

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Have an operator demonstrate the process.
Is there a controled
Points of example:
2.3 process for incoming 2.3
- Are work instructions readily available.
materials?
- Is the work instruction being followed?
- Control Plan
2.4
Are receiving inspection Review records for evidence of product disposition for acceptable 2.4
records complete? and NCM material.
3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process
Review a demonstration of the 1st piece inspection process
Points of example:
Is there a First Piece
- Is the process robust to ensure complete conformance?
3.1 Inspection process in 3.1
- Is the inspection frequency adequate?
place?
- Are records complete and available?
- Do records indicate authority for release ?
- Is first piece tagged or otherwise retained?

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Points of example:
- Control Plan
Are sample sizes and
- PFMEA
inspection frequencies for
3.2 - Operator Demonstrations 3.2
each operation adequate
- Records
to assure conformance?
- Statistical Tables
- Review Product and Process inspection frequencies
Points of example:
Are operator instructions
- Accessible
readily available to the
3.3 - Current 3.3
operator for each
- Controled
operation?
- Updated for special events, Quality Alerts
Have operator demonstrate the use of the work instruction.

When applicable, record the identification of the operations
Are work instructions and
reviewed.
3.4
visual aids appropriate for 3.4
the level of work being
Points of example:
performed?
- Observe Compliance
- Observe Deviations

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Have operator demonstrate the NCM control process.

Do work instructions
include information on the
3.5 Points of example: 3.5
handling of non-
- Tagging / traceability
conforming material?
- Segregation / Quarantine of product
- Records
What is the plan to Points of Example:

3.6 substitute in case of - Training matrix 3.6
employee absence? - Certifications
Have operator demonstrate the use of gauges.
Are the required gauges Points of example:

3.7 available and are they - Work Instructions 3.7
uesd effectively? - Control plan

- 5S Practices
- R&R studies

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Points of example:
- Damaged gauge policy
Is gauge integrity being
3.8 - Gauge R&R studies 3.8
managed?
- Gauge mastering frequence
- Gauge calibration frequency
Points of examples:
- FMEA
Does the manufacturing
- Control Plan
3.9 process meet the required 3.9
- Statistical requirements
capability?
- Part print
- Technical Data Package
Have operator demonstrate the charting process.
Does the process control Points of example:

3.10 plan call for SPC? Is the - Charts and records analyzed 3.10
data properly recorded? - Reaction to out of control points with Root Cause Identified
- Prints and Technical requirements
- FMEA and Control Plan

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Have operator demonstrate the inspection and data collection
process for multiple product parameters.
Is there evidence that all
3.11 in-process inspection is Points of example: 3.11
complete? - In-process inspection records

- Control Plan
- Work Instruction
Points of example:
How is part traceability - Identification tags
3.12 maintained throughout the - Travelers 3.12
manufacturing process? - Bar code

- Records
Points of example:
- FIFO
3.13
Are in-process materials - WIP 3.13
managed effectively? - Preservation
- Identified properly
- Mixing, damaged

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Have operator demonstrate error-proofing methods.
3.14
Are effective error-proofing Points of example: 3.14
methods implemented? - Go/No-Go masters
- Mastering frequency
- Vision system
Points of example:
Are special operations
- Heat treat
3.15 utilized? Are they properly 3.15
- Part washing
controlled?
- NDT inspection
Points of example:
- 5S
Are all areas maintained to
- Appropriate lighting
3.16 enhance productivity and 3.16
- Safety programs
quality?
- Ergonomics
- Cleanliness
4. Final Inspection / Shipping

Date: 0 0 0 0 0
Part Number Score

Evidence
Points of example:
Are final inspection
- Control Plan
4.1 activities listed on the 4.1
- Work Instructions
control plan?
- Prints / Technical specifications
Have operator demonstrate the final inspection process.
Points of Example:
How is conformance to
- Functional gauges
4.2 requirements verified at 4.2
- Geometric verification
final inspection?
- Labeling
- Prevention of mixed parts
- Dock audits
Points of example:
Does the part audited - Packaging
4.3 comply with D-13 - Preservation 4.3
requirements? - Mistake proofing for labeling operation

Corrective Action Request
Supplier: Supplier Code: DCPA Date:
Process: G8D Number: Completion

Target:
1. DCPA Requirement
Navistar Representative to Complete

2. Statement of non conformance
3. Objective Evidence
Auditor: Audit Date:
4. Non-Conformance Notification
Responsible: Date Response Required By:
Notified:
5. Root Cause Analysis
Identification
Method:
6. Corrective Action
Action Responsible Promise Date
Supplier Representative to complete

7. Response Record
Received Date Received:
From:
8. Verification and Follow-up
Approved by:
Approval Yes No
Follow-up Responsible: Date:
Follow-Up Date Next Follow-Up Auditor
9. Effectiveness Verification
Navistar Representative to
Complete
10. Corrective Action Closure

Auditor: Date:
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Corrective Action Request
Supplier: LGO Global Sourcing Supplier Code: 48526X3 DCPA Date: 8/20/12
Process: P6.3 Production Personnel Resources G8D Number: 18143 Completion 8/20/12
Target:
1. DCPA Requirement / Question
3.3 "Do work instruction include the handling of non-conforming material?"
Navistar Representative to Complete

2. Statement of non conformance
Process establish to ensure that non-conforming product is handled appropriately is not fully effective at this time.
Filled out by Navistar Auditor
3. Objective Evidence
Non-conforming handling procedure, PROC-8.3-001, specifies that non-conforming material must be identified with a non-conforming tag and
placed into a red bin. At the time of the audit, operators were marking the non-conforming part with a dry erase marker and placing it on an
unidentified rack. No red tags or red bins were available line side as specified in the procedure.
Auditor: Audit Date:

Steve Erickson 8/20/12
4. Non-Conformance Notification
Responsible: Date Response Required By:
Notified:
5. Root Cause Analysis
Y
Identification e
Method:
s
6. Corrective Action
Action Responsible Promise Date
Supplier Representative to complete
Filled out by Company Audited

7. Response Record
Date Received:
Received From:
8. Verification and Follow-up
Approved by:
Approval
Follow-up Responsible: Date:
Follow-Up Date Next Follow-Up Auditor
9. Effectiveness Verification
Navistar Representative to
1) Competence, training and awareness procedure has been revised and there is evidence that it is being followed as prescribed. 2) Revised
competency records for new employees and all were inline with their skills need analysis. 3) Operators interviewed understand there job
duties.
Complete
Filled out by Navistar Auditor

10. Corrective Action Closure
Auditor: Date:
Steve Erickson 11/20/12
ISQ-006-FO Rev. A Date: 11/01/2012

Rev. No. Effective Date Revision History
0 4/19/2012 Initial document release per the Management Review 4/16/12.
Formatting and instruction updates: At Q 1.7 added 4th point of
example. Q 3.8 changed dropped to damaged. Q 4.3 added
mistake proofing to labeling. Shading added to audit comment
section for: questions not scored and when score <7. Removed no
comment from scoring tab for max points, added statement of
1 5/8/2012
expectation. Removed Navistar Defense title from Product Audit.
Updated instructions lines 174 to end. Clarified who to send the
completed DCPA to. Decided upon a doc naming structure.
Corrected formatting error in the coloring of the cell for question 3.8
in the control plan audit. (The cell was changing to red with an
2 6/13/2012 acceptable score and remark; with an acceptable score and
comment the cell should have been white. This was corrected. No
issue with actual math used in scoring.)
Made updates to align with NSA V2.1 (cover sheet, corrective
V2.0 8/25/2012 action form), Adjust cell formated, verified formulas and printing
results.
Rev. A 11/1/2012 Document number is not ISO-006-FO. Minor edits.

Competency Mapping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competency Mapping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCPA V2.

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

City, State ZIP Code:

Supplier's Quality Management System Registration

Previous NSA Score: Last NSA Date:

Authorized Supplier Rep.: Date:

Tel. No. email:

Name Title Phone Email

ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012

ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012

Focus of Audit Complete MFG Process Cell Operation Other

DCPA history Dynamic Control Plan Audit Scope

Generate Rapid Response History

Prism 8-D History

Are there open 8-D's ? yes no

Is progress to closure satisfactory yes no

Are there prior closed 8-D's yes no

Assessment Score Evaluation Classification

Full compliance with Record objective evidence reviewed that supports

Deviation from target but without effect on

A process problem which may potentially lead to

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Dynamic Control Plan

1. Process Documentation - Overview E1

3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process E3

4. Final Inspection / Shipping E4

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Military Product Audit

3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process

4. Final Inspection / Shipping

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Risk Review: Objective Evidence and Recommendations and Follow-Up

Dynamic Control Plan Summary:

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Item Product characteristic Gaging / Test Method Nominal

ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Item Product characteristic Gaging / Test Method Nominal

If Remedial Action required: Hold Tag:

ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Item Product characteristic Gaging / Test Method Nominal

ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Tolerance Measured Value (s) OK / NG

ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Tolerance Measured Value (s) OK / NG

ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Tolerance Measured Value (s) OK / NG

ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

ISO-006-FO Rev: A Date: 11/01/2012

Part Number Score

Guidance / Suggestions for Objective

and revision level? - CAD Search

Are all technical

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 26 of 38 Date: 11/01/2012

Part Number Score

Guidance / Suggestions for Objective

requirements - Are RPN values updated when specifications change or

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 27 of 38 Date: 11/01/2012

Part Number Score