7.2.

7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018

User Guide www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

1
2 The questions are used to evaluate the
quality of the deliverable attached to the
3 element. Input evidence of the answer to the question (e.g.: document
Typical aspects of the deliverable to be reference) here. If an "X" is in the preceding N column (column
4 evaluated through the questions are: D) then describe the issue here including root cause in order to
1. Quality/availability of the inputs needed identify proper actions .
Y* - Put an "X" if complete and is OK or
5 to build the deliverable "IP" if in-progress as planned.
2. Cross-functional approach to answer the N - Put an "X" if it is Not OK .
deliverables N/A - Put an "X" if you have agreed with
6 3. Quality /conformity to a standard if any your customer that this question is Not
or to best practices Applicable.
7 4. control of the outcome of the deliverable RYG - Put an "R" here if the answer to the
(e.g. action plan) question is not acceptable and there is no
8 recovery plan. Put a "Y" here if there are
problems with the question but is
recoverable with an action plan inplace.
9 Put a "G" if it is on track or satisfactorily
complete. When you put an "R" or "Y"
10 you will need to complete the "Actions
Required" and subsequent columns.
11
12
13
14
15
X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating
IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified plans identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed item is highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be
provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which
100% Y will prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G
development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
User Guide www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date

1
2 The questions are used to evaluate the
quality of the deliverable attached to the These are typical action management milestones .
3 element. The due date should be aligned with the closure date
Actions identified based on the root cause described of the deliverable as planned in the APQP timing. In
Typical aspects of the deliverable to be in the Evidence column when the RYG column is Red
4 evaluated through the questions are: or Yellow.
cases where the due date is not aligned with APQP
1. Quality/availability of the inputs needed timing, the RYG status is most likely Red .
5 to build the deliverable
2. Cross-functional approach to answer the
deliverables
6 3. Quality /conformity to a standard if any
or to best practices
7 4. control of the outcome of the deliverable
(e.g. action plan)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Date of revision for the Reviewed by:
provided status and
personnel involved Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev 1 October 2018
4.01 Production Process Runs www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Is the product being manufactured at the production
site using the production tooling, gaging, process
1 materials, operators, environment, and process
settings?
Does the process flow agree with the process flow
2 diagram, as documented in PPAP?
Are operator instructions/visual controls available and
3 adhered to at each work station?
Is all in-process documentation, including process
control charts, in place? Is the documentation utilized
4 to drive a defined reaction plan and corrective action
process?
Are maintenance plans in place? Are repair and
6 maintenance parts available? Is there planned
downtime for preventive maintenance?
Are all production start-up and change over
7 procedures in place and verified to be effective?
Are all personnel involved in manufacturing of the
8 product (operators, maintenance, testing etc)
adequately trained?
Are all production checking fixtures complete, with
9 acceptable measurement system studies (i.e., Gage
R and R)?
Are all in-process gaging and controls complete,
10 functional and in place?
Do the process control plans agree with the process
11 including process monitoring and product inspection
points?
Are potential failure modes as defined in the PFMEA
12 addressed through error-proofing or the control plan?
Do the parts produced off production tooling during
14 the production process runs meet customer
requirements?
15 Is the manufacturing process in control?
Does the manufacturing process demonstrate the
16 required capability ( Cpk or agreed upon metric) ?
Is the process control plan sufficient to effectively
17 meet the design record requirements, i.e., control
points, frequency of checks, etc?
Did the Control Plan and PFMEA predict and mitigate
18 non-conformances?
Were FMEAs and Control plans updated as
necessary for nonconformances generated during the
19 production process run(s)? Where updated
documents signed off by the customer, if required?
Has externally provided hardware been verified via
20 FAI and/or PPAP?
Has planned packaging and internal handling shown
21 to be effective through the production process run?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
22 been identified that may affect this deliverable?
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev 1 October 2018
4.01 Production Process Runs www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev 1 October 2018
4.01 Production Process Runs www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Is the product being manufactured at the production
site using the production tooling, gaging, process
1 materials, operators, environment, and process
settings?
Does the process flow agree with the process flow
2 diagram, as documented in PPAP?
Are operator instructions/visual controls available and
3 adhered to at each work station?
Is all in-process documentation, including process
control charts, in place? Is the documentation utilized
4 to drive a defined reaction plan and corrective action
process?
Are maintenance plans in place? Are repair and
6 maintenance parts available? Is there planned
downtime for preventive maintenance?
Are all production start-up and change over
7 procedures in place and verified to be effective?
Are all personnel involved in manufacturing of the
8 product (operators, maintenance, testing etc)
adequately trained?
Are all production checking fixtures complete, with
9 acceptable measurement system studies (i.e., Gage
R and R)?
Are all in-process gaging and controls complete,
10 functional and in place?
Do the process control plans agree with the process
11 including process monitoring and product inspection
points?
Are potential failure modes as defined in the PFMEA
12 addressed through error-proofing or the control plan?
Do the parts produced off production tooling during
14 the production process runs meet customer
requirements?
15 Is the manufacturing process in control?
Does the manufacturing process demonstrate the
16 required capability ( Cpk or agreed upon metric) ?
Is the process control plan sufficient to effectively
17 meet the design record requirements, i.e., control
points, frequency of checks, etc?
Did the Control Plan and PFMEA predict and mitigate
18 non-conformances?
Were FMEAs and Control plans updated as
necessary for nonconformances generated during the
19 production process run(s)? Where updated
documents signed off by the customer, if required?
Has externally provided hardware been verified via
20 FAI and/or PPAP?
Has planned packaging and internal handling shown
21 to be effective through the production process run?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
22 been identified that may affect this deliverable?
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev 1 October 2018
4.01 Production Process Runs www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.02 Measurement System Analysis (MSA) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Has the measurement system been implemented per
1 the MSA Plan?
Do the measurement systems put in place provide
2 sufficient accuracy and discrimination for the required
product and process measurements?
Has capability and accuracy been established for
3 measuring and test equipment being used?
Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for
4 measuring and test equipment and tooling?
Are setup instructions for measuring and test
5 equipment and tooling complete and understandable?

Will capable gages be available to run preliminary

6 process capability studies at the equipment supplier's
facility?
Have key characteristics (product/process) been
7 incorporated into new equipment/tooling controls?
Were customer safety, compliance with regulations,
8 function, fit, form, cost, or appearance used in
determining acceptance criteria?
Does the measuring equipment have sufficient
9 capacity to handle forecasted production quantities?
Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate
10 testing?
11 Are there any out of specification conditions?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.02 Measurement System Analysis (MSA) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Has the measurement system been implemented per
1 the MSA Plan?
Do the measurement systems put in place provide
2 sufficient accuracy and discrimination for the required
product and process measurements?
Has capability and accuracy been established for
3 measuring and test equipment being used?
Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for
4 measuring and test equipment and tooling?
Are setup instructions for measuring and test
5 equipment and tooling complete and understandable?

Will capable gages be available to run preliminary

6 process capability studies at the equipment supplier's
facility?
Have key characteristics (product/process) been
7 incorporated into new equipment/tooling controls?
Were customer safety, compliance with regulations,
8 function, fit, form, cost, or appearance used in
determining acceptance criteria?
Does the measuring equipment have sufficient
9 capacity to handle forecasted production quantities?
Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate
10 testing?
11 Are there any out of specification conditions?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.03 Initial Process Capability Studies www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Have the details of the study been determined and
agreed upon between the supplier and the customer,
1 e.g. source of data from Production Process Run,
Similar Parts, or "On Going"?
Has the sample size been agreed upon with the
2 customer?
Have all of the Key Characteristics and Critical Items
3 for the Preliminary Process Capability study been
identified and agreed upon by the customer?
Have the sources of variation been analyzed and
4 accounted (Cause & Effect Diagram or Families of
Variation tree)?
Has the process demonstrated stability through the
5 use of an SPC chart?
6 Does the sample show normal data?
Have all of the Key Characteristics and Critical Items
7 Capability Indexes been calculated and show Cpk >
1.33?
For any Key Characteristics or Critical Items that
8 have Cpk < 1.33 has a plan for 100% inspection been
submitted to the customer?
For any Key Characteristics or Critical Items that
9 have Cpk < 1.33 has an action plan for variation
reduction been created?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
10 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.03 Initial Process Capability Studies www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Have the details of the study been determined and
agreed upon between the supplier and the customer,
1 e.g. source of data from Production Process Run,
Similar Parts, or "On Going"?
Has the sample size been agreed upon with the
2 customer?
Have all of the Key Characteristics and Critical Items
3 for the Preliminary Process Capability study been
identified and agreed upon by the customer?
Have the sources of variation been analyzed and
4 accounted (Cause & Effect Diagram or Families of
Variation tree)?
Has the process demonstrated stability through the
5 use of an SPC chart?
6 Does the sample show normal data?
Have all of the Key Characteristics and Critical Items
7 Capability Indexes been calculated and show Cpk >
1.33?
For any Key Characteristics or Critical Items that
8 have Cpk < 1.33 has a plan for 100% inspection been
submitted to the customer?
For any Key Characteristics or Critical Items that
9 have Cpk < 1.33 has an action plan for variation
reduction been created?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
10 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.04 Production Control Plan www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Was the Control Plan developed per customer
1 requirements?
Have all the controls identified in the PFMEA been
2 included in the Control Plan?
Are all product/process Key Characteristics included
3 in the control plan?
Were DFMEA and PFMEA used to prepare the
4 Control Plan?
Are material specifications requiring inspection
5 identified?
Does the Control Plan address incoming
6 (material/components) through processing/assembly
including packaging?
Are engineering performance testing and dimensional
7 requirements identified?
Are gages and test equipment available as required
8 by the control plan?
Are the gage methodology and compatibility
9 appropriate to meet customer requirements?
Have measurement systems analysis been
10 completed in accordance with customer
requirements?
Are sample sizes based upon industry standards,
11 statistical sampling plan tables, or other statistical
process control methods or techniques?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
12 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.04 Production Control Plan www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Was the Control Plan developed per customer
1 requirements?
Have all the controls identified in the PFMEA been
2 included in the Control Plan?
Are all product/process Key Characteristics included
3 in the control plan?
Were DFMEA and PFMEA used to prepare the
4 Control Plan?
Are material specifications requiring inspection
5 identified?
Does the Control Plan address incoming
6 (material/components) through processing/assembly
including packaging?
Are engineering performance testing and dimensional
7 requirements identified?
Are gages and test equipment available as required
8 by the control plan?
Are the gage methodology and compatibility
9 appropriate to meet customer requirements?
Have measurement systems analysis been
10 completed in accordance with customer
requirements?
Are sample sizes based upon industry standards,
11 statistical sampling plan tables, or other statistical
process control methods or techniques?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
12 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.05 Capacity Verification www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Was overall plant utlilization determined and
1 considered in verifying capacity?
Was any shared capacity with other customers
2 determined and considered in verifying capacity?
Was the Customer Peak Demand rate profile used for
3 calculations ?
4 Was the defect rate at or better than expected?
Did the Capacity Analysis verify ability to meet peak
5 demand?
Were sub-tier supplier's capacity verified and able to
6 meet capacity requirements?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
7 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.05 Capacity Verification www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Was overall plant utlilization determined and
1 considered in verifying capacity?
Was any shared capacity with other customers
2 determined and considered in verifying capacity?
Was the Customer Peak Demand rate profile used for
3 calculations ?
4 Was the defect rate at or better than expected?
Did the Capacity Analysis verify ability to meet peak
5 demand?
Were sub-tier supplier's capacity verified and able to
6 meet capacity requirements?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
7 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.06 Product Validation Results www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Is the list of agreed upon validation test requirements
1 in alignment with the design record available?
Is there objective evidence to show all required tests
2 have been performed?
Do the validation test records each indicate the tests
3 performed, date, test limits, results, and outcome
(pass/fail)?
Is the list of agreed upon material certification
4 requirements, in alignment with the product drawing
or product specification requirements, available?

Do the required material certification documents show

5 compliance to all material requirements?
Are all required material certification documents
6 included in the package?
Do the test results indicate that the design meets the
7 customer intended use in the intended application?

Have any additional risks including mitigation plans

8 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.06 Product Validation Results www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Is the list of agreed upon validation test requirements
1 in alignment with the design record available?
Is there objective evidence to show all required tests
2 have been performed?
Do the validation test records each indicate the tests
3 performed, date, test limits, results, and outcome
(pass/fail)?
Is the list of agreed upon material certification
4 requirements, in alignment with the product drawing
or product specification requirements, available?

Do the required material certification documents show

5 compliance to all material requirements?
Are all required material certification documents
6 included in the package?
Do the test results indicate that the design meets the
7 customer intended use in the intended application?

Have any additional risks including mitigation plans

8 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.07 First Article Inspection (FAI) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Has the required documentation for the
1 manufacturing process and quality plan been
reviewed?
Has the required FAI documentation been reviewed
2 for completeness (e.g., inspection data, test data,
Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP), etc.)?
Is the ATP approved, revision controlled, revised by
authorized personnel, and include retention
3 requirements in accordance with customer and
regulatory requirements?

Have the supplier material certification documents

4 been reviewed for compliance?
Are the in-house material certifications reviewed for
completeness and conformance to ensure the
5 materials and the documents meet the
requirements?

6 When required, are special processes approved?

Do manufacturing and routing documents reference
7 the correct specification as necessary?
Have all additional requirements for key
8 characteristics been met?
Has every design characteristic and requirement
9 been completed, accounted for, uniquely identified
and are inspection results traceable to each unique
identifier?
Is there evidence of performing an FAI on all first
10 production runs?
Is there evidence that production and inspections
tools and processes are those that will be used in
11 serial production (if not, have possible impact of
changes been evaluated to decide if future partial FAI
will or will not be required)?
Has all non-conformance documentation been
12 reviewed for completeness?
Are all appropriate tools and inspection equipment
13 identified in the inspection documentation and are
they available for use by the appropriate personnel?
Have all tools and inspection equipement been
14 properly calibrated?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.07 First Article Inspection (FAI) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Has the required documentation for the
1 manufacturing process and quality plan been
reviewed?
Has the required FAI documentation been reviewed
2 for completeness (e.g., inspection data, test data,
Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP), etc.)?
Is the ATP approved, revision controlled, revised by
authorized personnel, and include retention
3 requirements in accordance with customer and
regulatory requirements?

Have the supplier material certification documents

4 been reviewed for compliance?
Are the in-house material certifications reviewed for
completeness and conformance to ensure the
5 materials and the documents meet the
requirements?

6 When required, are special processes approved?

Do manufacturing and routing documents reference
7 the correct specification as necessary?
Have all additional requirements for key
8 characteristics been met?
Has every design characteristic and requirement
9 been completed, accounted for, uniquely identified
and are inspection results traceable to each unique
identifier?
Is there evidence of performing an FAI on all first
10 production runs?
Is there evidence that production and inspections
tools and processes are those that will be used in
11 serial production (if not, have possible impact of
changes been evaluated to decide if future partial FAI
will or will not be required)?
Has all non-conformance documentation been
12 reviewed for completeness?
Are all appropriate tools and inspection equipment
13 identified in the inspection documentation and are
they available for use by the appropriate personnel?
Have all tools and inspection equipement been
14 properly calibrated?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.08 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Has the reason for the PPAP submission been
1 determined? (initial, Engineering Change, tooling,
Correction, tool inactive > 1 year, etc...)
Where submission levels have been established, has
2 the appropriate submission level been determined?
Have the applicable PPAP requirements been flowed
3 to supplier?
Do all elements included in the submission meet with
4 the requirements of the corresponding checklists?
Do all design records and supporting documents
5 included in the PPAP submission reflect the proper
Part Number and Change Level ?
Do the results for dimensional measurements
6 included in the submission meet requirements
specified in the design records?
Do the material test results included in the
7 submission meet requirements specified in the design
records.?
Do the functional test results included in the
8 submission meet requirements specified in the design
records.?
Do the submission results for appearance criteria
9 included in the submission meet requirements
specified in the design records.?
Does the data submitted for initial process capability
studies meet requirements, e.g. process in control,
10 normal distribution analysis, acceptable capability
index?
11 Are all Customer tools properly tagged?
Has the Part Submission Warrant been signed by the
12 supplier and customer?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
13 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.08 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Has the reason for the PPAP submission been
1 determined? (initial, Engineering Change, tooling,
Correction, tool inactive > 1 year, etc...)
Where submission levels have been established, has
2 the appropriate submission level been determined?
Have the applicable PPAP requirements been flowed
3 to supplier?
Do all elements included in the submission meet with
4 the requirements of the corresponding checklists?
Do all design records and supporting documents
5 included in the PPAP submission reflect the proper
Part Number and Change Level ?
Do the results for dimensional measurements
6 included in the submission meet requirements
specified in the design records?
Do the material test results included in the
7 submission meet requirements specified in the design
records.?
Do the functional test results included in the
8 submission meet requirements specified in the design
records.?
Do the submission results for appearance criteria
9 included in the submission meet requirements
specified in the design records.?
Does the data submitted for initial process capability
studies meet requirements, e.g. process in control,
10 normal distribution analysis, acceptable capability
index?
11 Are all Customer tools properly tagged?
Has the Part Submission Warrant been signed by the
12 supplier and customer?
Have any additional risks including mitigation plans
13 been identified that may affect this deliverable?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.09 Customer Specific Requirements www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Has the customer identified any specific
1 requirements?
Have customer specific requirements been evaluated
2 and accepted as specified?
Is there a process for ensuring that customer specific
3 requirements are communicated to personnel
responsible for their execution?
Are customer specific requirements incorporated into
4 appropriate procedures and work instructions?
Is there evidence that customer specific requirements
5 have been complied with?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
4.09 Customer Specific Requirements www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Has the customer identified any specific
1 requirements?
Have customer specific requirements been evaluated
2 and accepted as specified?
Is there a process for ensuring that customer specific
3 requirements are communicated to personnel
responsible for their execution?
Are customer specific requirements incorporated into
4 appropriate procedures and work instructions?
Is there evidence that customer specific requirements
5 have been complied with?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)