Writing Commander Letter of Recommendation - Excel

Document Sample
Writing Commander Letter of Recommendation - Excel Powered By Docstoc
					          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                         DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                      TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Corrective Action
       1. When nonconformity associated with the Supplier’s Quality Management
       System (QMS), processes or product characteristics are independently
       discovered by DCMA, the supplier shall be notified and requested to initiate
       corrective actions in accordance with contractual requirements.
       2.1 The levels of CARs are used appropriately.
       2.2 As a minimum, a CAR shall contain the following:
       Contract Number
       Contractual requirement reference
       Description of the Nonconformity which shows a clear departure from the stated
       requirement
       Due date for supplier’s response
       CARs for SOF shall require an initial response from the supplier of no more
       than 5 working days
       Date issued
       Issuing functional specialist
       Identification of “CSI” or “SOF,” if the nonconformity is associated with CSI or
       SOF characteristics
       2.3. For Level II or higher corrective action requests, the CAR should clearly
       state that the request should be treated by the supplier as a customer complaint.
       This will ensure that information is reviewed by the supplier as part of the
       corrective action system.
       2.4 Level II and higher CARs shall cite the following minimum requirements for
       a Supplier’s response:
                                                  Cause(s) of the nonconformity
       Actions taken or planned to eliminate the cause(s) and prevent recurrence of the
       nonconformity
       Actions taken to correct the specific nonconformity
       Whether other products are affected, including product already delivered to the
       customer
       Action taken to correct the weakness which allowed deficient product to be
       presented to the government for acceptance
       Target date(s) for implementation of planned actions
3. Issue CAR – The CAR shall be issued to the appropriate level of the
supplier’s management responsible for corrective action and commensurate with
the CAR level.
4. Distribute CAR - Copies of Level II CAR’s shall be provided to the
originator of Quality Assurance Letters of Instruction (QALI) and Letters of
Delegation (LOD) and the appropriate ACO. Provide a copy to the Industrial
Specialist if the contract delivery schedule might be impacted by the
nonconformity. A copy of any Level III or IV CAR shall be provided to the
CMO Commander/Director, the Division Operations Director, the appropriate
DCMA CIC Counsel, all affected customers and the appropriate DCAA
representative. Level III and IV CARs shall be uploaded to the DCMA Forum.
  4.1. The procuring activity shall be advised of corrective action requests
issued by DCMA to the supplier relative to nonconforming CSI, CSI critical
characteristics, or deficient manufacturing, configuration management, quality
management, or supplier management processes. Advise procuring activities of
contractor responses and status of corrective actions relating to defective CSI or
CSI processes.
5. Document CAR Details on Appropriate Corrective Action Log and QA CAR
Log (when available). The log shall include tracking number, general description
of nonconformity, issue date, response due date, date response received, planned
follow-up date, and closure date.
6. Supplier Takes Corrective Action - The supplier shall address all
nonconformities cited in the CAR and the specific elements of paragraph 2.4.
7. Review Supplier Response - QA personnel shall review and determine the
adequacy of the supplier’s planned corrective actions. This should include
reviewing the Supplier’s identified causes and the proposed corrective actions to
ensure the proposed actions will adequately prevent recurrence. Where the
supplier's response has not adequately addressed all the minimum requirements
cited in paragraph 2.4 the response shall be rejected. The rejection should
normally be in writing.

8. Verify Implementation - The functional specialist shall verify that the
Supplier has implemented the stated corrective actions. Where the functional
specialist's verification shows the supplier has not implemented the stated
corrective actions, the functional specialist shall take appropriate action with the
supplier and reschedule the verification accordingly. The functional specialist
should verify that, where appropriate, the supplier’s internal audit system
schedule includes reviewing the implementation and effectiveness of corrective
actions.
9. Follow-Up - Validate Effectiveness of Supplier’s Corrective Action. The
functional specialist shall establish a suspense date for follow-up
implementation verification. The suspense date will be after a suitable
corrective action stabilization period. The follow-up review shall assure that the
implementation is effective in preventing recurrence of the nonconformity.
Follow-up actions may include process review, product examination, data
analysis and systems audit on relevant elements. Where the functional specialist
finds objective evidence that the Supplier’s corrective action is ineffective, the
functional specialist shall resubmit the corrective action request to the Supplier
and include the evidence of inefficacy. The results of the follow-up review shall
be documented to include the date completed.
10. CAR Closure – When satisfied that the Supplier’s corrective actions are
appropriate to prevent recurrence of the non-conformity, the functional specialist
shall record the corrective action details on the corrective action record,
including the causes and any follow-up actions that were performed. The
supplier shall be notified when the corrective action request is considered closed
by DCMA. For Level III and higher corrective action requests, copies of the
letter notifying the supplier of the closure action shall be sent to all those
addressed/copied in the original CAR.
   11.1. Per FAR 52.246-2 and DFAR 246.470-1, recoupment of re-inspection
costs should be considered if there are habitual rejections of supplies that require
retesting, or supplies are consistently not ready for the functional specialist’s
inspection when inspection is requested. The functional specialist may believe
that the assessment of additional costs is warranted in these situations. Once that
determination is made, the functional specialist should notify the contractor that
he will only accept formal requests for inspection (e.g. e-mail or fax) in order to
develop the documentation necessary to recoup costs, and explain to the
contractor the policy for recoupment per FAR 52.246-2.

11.2. If the condition does not improve, the functional specialist shall
recommend that the ACO take the necessary action for recoupment and provide
a recommendation as to the amount of additional costs. Costs shall be
determined at the standard non-DoD reimbursable rate (the rate charged to
NASA and other Government agencies) in effect at the time of the delay or
retest. The functional specialist shall maintain a log of the time spent for all
delays that exceed one-half hour and time spent for retesting of rejected
supplies, including travel time, beginning from when this action is
contemplated. The documentation shall be provided to the ACO at the time of
initial ACO notification. If the ACO agrees with the functional specialist, the
ACO may elect to (1) issue a letter of warning, or (2) Notify the contractor, in
writing, of the determination to exercise the Government's right under the clause
at FAR 52.246-2, Inspection of Supplies--Fixed-Price; and (3) Demand payment
or consideration of the costs in accordance with the collection procedures
contained in FAR Subpart 32.6.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
     X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
                                                                          0
Total OBS   % Effective
   0




             #DIV/0!
Date
    1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST
REVIEWER:                             DATE:
TECH SPEC:                          TEAM:




Requirement
Critical Safety items

1. QA personnel shall review contract, technical data package (TDP), quality assurance letter of
instruction (QALI), purchase order and letter of delegation (LOD) to determine if the item is CSI.
  1.1. Non-aviation CSI include personal protective devices such as Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI)
vests, gas masks, chemical/biological suits, and parachutes; conventional ammunition including small/large
caliber munitions, artillery rounds, bombs, and missiles; critical items associated with space launch vehicles
(manned and unmanned) and satellites; mission critical items for Missile Defense; and Naval Sea System
CSIs.
     1.1.1. Non-aviation CSI TDPs and customer QALIs (if issued) shall be reviewed for formally
identified critical characteristics. Where the TDP or QALI does not formally define or identify critical
characteristics, the results of a formal failure analysis e.g. Failure Modes & Effects Criticality Analysis
(FMECA) should be used to identify items that are categorized as single point failures or will cause a
catastrophic failure. The identified cause of the failure mode can be used as a basis for determining
surveillance requirements and should be treated as critical.
  1.2. Aviation CSIs are determined by the military service Engineering Support Activity (ESA). Aviation
CSIs are identified to DCMA through Contracts, TDPs, and/or QALIs. CSIs at the subcontract level are
identified through the delegation and shall reference the source document for the CSI designation
e.g. contract, TDP, or QALI. CSIs from legacy systems may be identified as Flight Safety, Flight
Critical Part, Flight Critical, etc. Questions of whether an item is a CSI should be addressed through the
procurement office to the applicable ESA.

     1.2.1. The Joint CSI Data Viewer is a web portal that encompasses a total listing of all ESA identified
CSIs by accessing the specific Service's database and may be used when there is a question of a valid
CSI. The data viewer is located at: CSI Viewer. Items found to be CSI in the Joint CSI data viewer shall
be treated as CSI; if the contract does not identify the item as CSI, the procurement office shall be
notified of the contract error and confirmation of the CSI designation requested. If an item is
identified as CSI in the contract but is found not to be classified as CSI in the data viewer,
confirmation of the CSI designation shall be requested and the procurement office notified of the
possible contract error; until the contract is modified, the item shall be treated as CSI.

     1.2.2. Aviation CSI critical characteristics can only be determined by the military service ESA.
Documentation for critical characteristics may be found in the contract, TDP or QALI. Critical characteristics
may be identified as a physical characteristic, installation characteristic, test parameter or process e.g. shot
peen. CSI critical characteristics at the subcontract level are identified through the delegation and shall
reference the source document for the CSI designation e.g. contract, TDP, or QALI. QA personnel shall
initiate contact with the procuring activity to request guidance from the ESA when an item may be
inappropriately identified as a CSI or when an item is not identified as a CSI and the QA specialist
believes it should be.
2. QA personnel shall determine the appropriate critical characteristic strategy for initial and
continuing surveillance of identified CSIs with defined critical characteristic(s). Unless the
customer specifies otherwise, the following methodologies outline the Agency approach for critical
characteristic surveillance:
    Shipboard Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE) Critical Safety Items (CSIs) Including
    Steam Catapult Components (INFORMATION)
   2.1. Product feature is defined as the critical characteristic and contract quality requirement is FAR
52.246-11 Higher Level Quality Requirement or any Standard Inspection Clause (FAR 52.246-2 through
52.246-9).
      2.1.1. Initial Surveillance – Perform product examination of the critical characteristic on the
first available production piece.
      2.1.2. Continuing Surveillance – Perform product examination of critical characteristics in
accordance with a zero based statistically valid sampling plan of 0.4 Quality Release Level (QRL),
unless sampling plan is defined specifically in the contract.
   2.2. Process is defined as the critical characteristic and contract quality requirement is FAR 52.246-11
Higher Level Quality Requirement.
      2.2.1. Initial Surveillance – Conduct initial process review in addition to verifying the output of
the process through product examination.
      2.2.2. Continuing Surveillance – Evaluate the process incrementally until all process
characteristics have been evaluated and periodically perform product examination to verify process
adequacy; the frequency of the review is dependent on the process activity and supplier
performance.
   2.3. Process is defined as the critical characteristic and contract quality requirement is any
Standard Inspection Clause (FAR 52.246-2 through 52.246-9). Since Standard Inspection systems,
FAR 52.246-2 through 52.246-9, do not require process control; notify the customer and comply with
any direction received. Pending any direction, assure that the supplier inspection system verifies
the output of the process defined as a critical characteristic.

  2.4. Where critical characteristics/processes are produced / accomplished at a subcontractor
facility and cannot be adequately verified at the prime supplier location using the methodologies
described above, a delegation for subcontract QA surveillance shall be issued. Surveillance
performed at a subcontractor through a LOD shall be included as a part of the surveillance strategy.

    2.5. Where critical characteristics apply to the item’s installation, sometimes known as
“installation critical” and that installation is not accomplished where the item is produced, the point
of installation is responsible for those critical characteristics. This may be the military service in
the case of spare parts or the next higher assembly where a component or platform is being
procured/overhauled.
    2.6. DCMA QA surveillance strategies do not apply to commercial aircraft or subsystems purchased and
maintained in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation, unless required by the
Service ESA.
    2.7.  CSI’s procured under a commercial contract requirement (FAR 52.212-4) will need addenda to give 
the government the authority to perform the necessary in-process product examinations and/or process
reviews to verify conformity. Without addenda this clause limits government surveillance to point of tender
and to be compatible with common industry practice.  Where CSI’s are procured with a commercial contract 
clause and no addenda, the QAR personnel should determine if the necessary product examination and/or
process review could be accomplished to determine critical characteristic conformity. If QAR is unable to
perform product examination the procuring/delegating activity shall be immediately notified and
addenda requested.


3. Surveillance of aviation CSI is not limited to verification of critical characteristics. Important
manufacturing processes have been identified by the Engineering Support Activities (ESA) for
consideration for a specific CSI when identifying risk factors. The processes on this list are not all
inclusive; if there are other important processes identified through the planning effort, surveillance
strategies shall be established accordingly.
4. Although the ESAs are working to formally define critical characteristics, there will always be an
outstanding population of CSIs without defined critical characteristics. QA surveillance in these instances is
contingent on whether the CSI manufacturer is a system or subsystem prime supplier, an original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) with design authority from the prime supplier/ESA, or an alternative source.

  4.1. A Prime Supplier is one having responsibility for design of a system, subsystem, or equipment. An
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is the individual, activity or organization that performs the physical
fabrication processes that produce the deliverable part or other items of supply for the prime supplier. The
OEM may or may not be granted design responsibility by the prime supplier for preparation and technical
currency of drawings and technical data. OEM parts are sometimes referred to as legacy items.

    4.1.1. When the CSI is the responsibility of the Prime or OEM with design authority and critical
characteristics have not been identified, the surveillance strategy shall consist of applying the process
review technique associated with selected Important Manufacturing Process as outlined in paragraph 3.
Product examinations of the process output on these processes may be performed as necessary.
   4.2. An Alternate Source is an offeror (Government or Supplier) other than the prime supplier or OEM,
as defined in paragraph 4.1, who provides an identical part numbered item.
      4.2.1. When the CSI is the responsibility of an alternate source, the following significant
characteristics criteria are established for QA personnel to use when critical characteristics are not
otherwise defined by the ESA in the technical data package, contract, or specific instructions provided by
the buying activity. A courtesy copy of DCMA identified significant characteristics shall be provided
to the buying activity and PCO for transmittal to the ESA and shall be maintained on file by the
QAR. If significant investments in time and effort are anticipated in reviewing the tech data package
to identify applicable significant characteristics the ESA shall be contacted with proposed
alternative surveillance strategies focused on surveillance of important manufacturing processes
as defined in paragraph 3. The intent of these criteria is to define those significant product characteristics
on which QA personnel shall focus their surveillance in the absence of ESA defined critical characteristics.
Surveillance strategies for significant characteristics may include process reviews or incremental process
reviews (performed on processes that produce or control the significant characteristic) in addition to product
examinations. The contractual technical requirements (e.g. drawing characteristics) shall be
    Diametrical and linear dimensions having a total tolerance of “.001” or less.
    Geometric features other than diametrical and linear dimensions (e.g. run out, perpendicularity,
    parallelism, and concentricity) with a total tolerance of “.002” or less.
    Surface finishes having a value of “16 RMS” or less.
    Threads specified to class 3 or greater or classified as Safety Critical.
    Angular dimensions with total tolerance range of 1 degree (60 minutes) or less.
    Test Methods & Acceptance Criteria for Nondestructive Testing (e.g. magnetic particle, liquid penetrant,
    radiographic inspection, ultrasonic, eddy current, etc.).
    Hardness testing (e.g. Rockwell).
    Shot peen requirements.
    Material properties and material certifications.
    Dynamic balancing of rotating units and static balancing of flight control surfaces.
    Flow checks for blades and vanes.
    Spray pattern requirements for fuel nozzles (including afterburner rings).
    Weight checks.



 4.3. In addition to these significant product characteristics surveillance shall also encompass the
Aviation CSI Important Manufacturing Processes detailed in paragraph 3 above.
5. Dealers or Distributors do not always possess the measuring devices and/or technical data associated
with the CSI’s they are offering for acceptance.  If QA personnel are unable to perform product
examination due to unavailability of measuring devices or technical drawings/specifications, the
procuring/delegating activity shall be immediately notified to request that the procuring activity
either provide specific acceptance criteria or require inspection and acceptance at destination in
lieu of source.
6. The CSI surveillance strategy shall be documented in a surveillance plan. This strategy shall
include a determination of CSI subcontract delegation requirements. This may be a CSI specific plan
or incorporated into the appropriate facility or program surveillance plan. As a minimum the plan shall
include:
  Identification of CSI Items
 Critical characteristics
 Important manufacturing processes (if applicable)
 Significant characteristics (if applicable)
 Surveillance methodology e.g. Product Examination, Process Review, etc.
 Intensity and frequency of surveillance
 Nonconforming material authority (if applicable)
 Customer communication requirements
7. The QAR shall execute the CSI surveillance strategy as documented in the surveillance plan.

8. DCMA personnel do not have authority to disposition minor non-conformances of aviation CSI unless
specifically delegated. The authority to disposition minor non-conformances of CSI is vested with the
military service ESA. All use-as-is or repair dispositions being applied to contractually designated
CSIs with defined critical characteristics shall be forwarded through the procuring activity to the
ESA for approval. Where the critical characteristic is not identified on the drawing, specification,
technical data package, or otherwise specified in the contract, but identified through a QALI or
other customer direction, all use-as-is or repair dispositions to non-conformances of such
characteristics shall be forwarded to the procuring activity and subsequently to the ESA for
approval. In certain situations, the procuring activity may vest authority for disposition of minor non-
conformances with DCMA. In these cases, the ESAs have delegated minor nonconformance authority to
DCMA by CAGE code or have detailed DCMA authority in the contract. The following documents identify
where the military service ESAs have delegated minor nonconformance authority to DCMA.

 Army-Navy Consolidated MRB List
 Air Force MRB Authorization Letter
 Navy MRB Authorization Moog
  8.1. Concessions (formerly known as waivers), requests for deviation permits, and Engineering
Change Proposals (ECPs) shall be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and
comments/recommendations shall be provided to the procuring activity.
  8.2. Where CSI contracts specify the supplier is required to perform 100% inspection of critical
characteristics e.g. AMCOM QE-STD-1and the supplier is pursuing contractual relief based on
statistical process control (SPC), the QAR shall evaluate the supplier’s SPC approach for adequacy
and provide a recommendation to the ESA via the ACO and PCO.

9. Documentation of surveillance results shall include:
  Date of surveillance
  Identification of who performed the inspection
  Supplier name
  The specific CSI serial or lot number as applicable
  Associated critical characteristics
  Associated “Important Manufacturing Processes” as applicable
 Number of observations
 Deficiencies found
 Traceability to associated Corrective Action Requests (CARs)
10. Contractual nonconformities noted during CSI surveillance shall be documented in accordance
with the QA Corrective Action Request policy. Nonconformity of critical characteristics shall result
in a Level II CAR as a minimum.
11. Data shall be analyzed on a periodic basis. See Data Analysis Policy (TBP). The data to be
analyzed shall include as applicable, but not limited to DCMA surveillance results, customer
complaints, results of supplier internal audits, 2nd and 3rd party audit results, and supplier
corrective/preventive actions. The surveillance plan shall identify the applicable data and analysis
interval. Adjustments to process reviews and significant characteristics shall be based on the
documented results of data analysis.
12. The following constitute minimum customer communication requirements:
    Advise the procuring activity of corrective action requests issued by DCMA to the supplier
    relative to nonconforming CSI, CSI critical characteristics, or deficient manufacturing,
    configuration management, quality management, or supplier management processes. Advise
    procuring activities of supplier responses and status of corrective actions relating to defective
    CSI or CSI processes.
    Notify affected procuring activities when DCMA becomes aware that a supplier removes a
    source from the supplier's approved subcontractors or suppliers because of improper or
    suspect manufacturing, quality management, or configuration management processes and there
    may be an impact on critical safety items.
    Advise the procuring activity of recommendations for the use of Certificate of Conformance
    (CoC) in lieu of Government Contract Quality Assurance (GCQA) and assure that the contract
    has been appropriately modified prior to implementing an ESA approved CoC.

   Initiate contact with the procuring activity to request guidance when an item may be
   inappropriately identified as a CSI, or when an item is not identified as a CSI and the QAR feels it
   should be. Instances of procurement office non-responsiveness should be elevated to the next
   level of management.
   Provide comments and recommendations regarding concessions (formerly known as waivers),
   requests for deviation permits and ECPs to the procuring activity.
                             ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3
FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION



                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed
4




   Total
 Defective                   %
Observations   Total OBS   Effective
           1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                            DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                         TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Contract Technical Review

       1. QAR Contract Review- Upon receipt of a contract requiring government source
       inspection, the QAR shall perform and document an initial review to identify the
       quality and technical requirements of the item being procured in order to include
       that information in Risk Assessment and subsequent Surveillance Plans. QARs shall
       also identify any special skills, qualifications, and certifications required and report
       any gaps to the first line supervisor.
         1.1. Typically, Section D of the contract contains the packaging, packing and
         marking requirements and section E contains the quality requirements. Additional
         requirements may be defined in the Statement of Work (SOW), if applicable and
         Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) DD forms 1423 if there is deliverable
         technical data.

        1.2. The QAR shall document contract review on the contract review form or a
        form approved by local policy until an automated contract review form is fielded
        by the Agency. The QAR shall identify potential risk impact indicators based on
        contract quality and technical requirements. Items to identify include:
                  Standard or higher level quality requirements
                  First Article requirement
                  SOF/CSI requirements
                  NASA requirements
                  QALI (if applicable)
                  Approved source or vendor requirements
                  Manufacturing processes and testing called out in the contract or TDP

                  Safety precautions for ammunition, explosives and other dangerous material
                 Special packaging, packing and marking requirements
                 Special requirements/instructions (i.e. supplier required to record actual
          dimensions)
                 Deliverable supplier data requirements (Normally contained on DD form
          1423 as an attachment to the contract)

       2. QAR participates in Post Award Orientation Conference. If the ACO and/or
       PCO decide that a full PAOC will be conducted, the QA Representative cognizant
       of the supplier shall participate. The quality assurance portion of the conference
       shall be used to discuss the quality and technical requirements specified in the
       contract, the responsibilities of the government QA personnel in assuring that the
       requirements are met, and the supplier’s plans and procedures for satisfying the
       contract quality requirements.
 2.1. Determine the need for a QA Post Award Orientation Conference
 (Reference Contract Receipt & Review Guidebook) -QA personnel shall
 document a recommendation for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO)
 to conduct a full Post Award Orientation Conference (PAOC) when the following
 factors apply:
   Negative or conditional Preaward survey findings and recommendations
   Critical nature and technical complexity of supplies or services is outside of
   the supplier’s demonstrated competency
   Critical Safety Items
   Adverse supplier performance history
   Adverse quality history with the item or service being provided
   A new supplier
   Contract contains First Article Requirements
   Contract contains either the Ground and Flight Risk Clause (DFARS 252.228-
   7001) or the Aircraft Flight Risk Clause (DFARS 252.228-7002), or otherwise
   involves aircraft operations

   Arms, Ammunition & Explosives (AA&E) contracts (DFARS clauses; 252.223-
   7002 - Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives, and 252.223-7007 -
   Safeguarding Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives)
    Overhaul and Repair contracts
  2.2. If the ACO declines the recommendation, QA personnel shall conduct a QA
  PAOC.
3. When a contract is identified as deficient, the deficiency shall be identified to
the customer via DD Form 1716 or other appropriate means. Resolution of the
deficiency shall be obtained and documented. Examples of deficiencies to be
identified for resolution include:
      Conflicting/ambiguous/missing quality or technical requirements
      Missing attachments to the contract
       Mis-identified contract administration office
       Mis-identified place of performance

       Aviation Critical Safety Items (CSI) not identified in the body of the contract.
       Instructions to the Contract Administration Office that are imbedded in the
   contract.

4. Results of contract technical review, including PAOC results shall be used to
create or update the Facility Risk Profile as appropriate (see Risk Management).
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                          DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                       TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Corrective Action
       1. Receive Customer Complaints - Each CMO shall appoint a Deficiency Report
       Program Manager (DRPM). The DRPM shall assure all customer complaint
       investigation results are managed, tracked, and documented in the Product Data
       Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP). Formal customer complaints are
       normally received on a SF 368 in PDREP.
       1.1. Each CMO shall notify their respective policy POC of DRPM appointments.

        1.2. When customer complaints are received other than in PDREP the DRPM shall
       determine if the Customer complaint is to be handled as an information only PQDR
       or will require an investigation based on the criticality of the deficiency
        1.2.1. The DRPM shall process all PQDRs in PDREP and provide a final report to the
       Action Point. As a minimum, the report shall stipulate that the supplier has been
       advised of the information PQDR.

       1.2.2. If the items are covered by warranty, the repairs, rework or replacement and
       associated cost shall be handled in accordance with the warranty requirement in the
       contract (FAR 46.7 and DFARS 246-7). Investigations of PQDRs submitted for
       warranted items shall be handled the same as for any other PQDR. Contract terms
       and conditions take precedence over this instruction.
       1.3. The DRPM shall return local purchased, transportation, ammunition and
       explosive PQDRs to the Action Point.
       1.4. When misdirected PQDRs are received, the DRPM shall coordinate with the
       Action Point to confirm the PQDR contains the correct information and forward
       PQDRs to the appropriate CMO for their action.
       1.5. The DRPM shall acknowledge receipt of CAT I PQDRs within 24 hours and CAT
       II PQDRS within 72 hours.
       1.6. The CMO shall establish a 20 day suspense for CAT I PQDRs and a 30 day
       suspense for CAT II PQDRs. This suspense date shall start when the PQDR is received
       by the DRPM.
       1.7. The DRPM shall forward the notification of discrepancy to the appropriate
       team for investigation.
2. Conduct Initial History Investigation - QA personnel shall perform an initial
history investigation. The investigation shall consist of a review of government
records and supplier performance data to determine if there is any previous history
regarding the deficiency identified. If a reported deficiency is the same as a
previously resolved PQDR or the deficiency is currently under investigation, a
response shall be provided to the customer indicating any previous or current
corrective actions taken by the supplier.
2.1. If support is needed at a subcontract level to support an investigation a
delegation shall be issued in PDREP.

3. Determine Need for Exhibits - QA personnel shall determine whether the
supplier will be requesting exhibits and shall request the exhibits in PDREP within 7
days. When exhibits are requested, PDREP will assign a new suspense date of 45
days. If the exhibit is not received within the 45 days QA personnel shall submit a
final report to the DRPM. The report shall include an assessment of current
production and inventory and the results of a record review for both supplier and
government data. The report shall stipulate that the investigation will be re-opened
when the requested exhibit arrives.

4. Receive Requested Exhibits - Upon receipt of a requested exhibit QA personnel
shall witness the opening of the shipping container to assure no damage occurred
during shipment. When shipment damage is discovered, QA personnel shall notify
the PQDR Action Point. QA personnel shall keep the Action Point informed of the
status of the PQDR investigation by issuing an Exhibit Receipt Letter from PDREP. A
final report is due, after receipt of the exhibit, within 20 days for CAT I PQDRs and 30
days for CAT II PQDRs. If the PQDR will take longer than 20 days (CAT I) or 30 days
(CAT II) to investigate and resolve
5. Determine Validity of Customer Complaint - QA personnel shall determine
the validity of the customer complaint through independent inspection/test or by
witnessing the supplier’s evaluation. QA personnel shall determine the PQDR
summary code to be used in the report of investigation. (PDREP). The DRPM
shall concur with or modify the PQDR summary code entries before releasing
the final DLA Form 1227 to the Action Point.
   6.1. Corrective action of customer complaints for products procured using a
commercial clause are typically limited to product replacement unless a specific
contract addendum was imposed.

   6.2. Determine the Cause of the Complaint - QA personnel shall perform a
comprehensive independent investigation to identify affected processes and root
causes and will coordinate the investigation with the supplier. QA personnel shall
coordinate with CMO manufacturing and/or engineering personnel if technical data
or design deficiencies are suspected to be the cause of the PQDR.
   6.3. Address Root Cause/Corrective Actions - QA personnel shall assure the
supplier takes corrective action to address the immediate cause of the deficiency and
effective action to preclude recurrence. When the investigation is completed and if it
is determined the supplier is at fault, QA personnel shall evaluate and concur or non-
concur with the supplier's investigation results and determine the adequacy of actions
taken. QA personnel shall determine the supplier’s position regarding repair or
replacement of affected items. If the part was under warranty the supplier is still
required to take corrective and preventive action.
 6.3.1. If support is needed at a subcontract level to verify actions taken by the
supplier/subcontractor, a delegation shall be issued in PDREP.

7. Determine Need for Adjustments to QA Surveillance - As a result of the
investigation (or when determined necessary) QA personnel shall document any
adjustments to the government surveillance strategy to preclude future
occurrences. Examples: QA personnel shall adjust the level of effort or intervals of
the government surveillance, identify new audit locations in surveillance strategy, etc.

8. Prepare Outgoing PQDRs on Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or
Government Furnished Material (GFM) - The SF 368, Product Quality Deficiency
Report, shall be used to report the receipt of deficient Government Furnished
Equipment (GFE) or Government Furnished Material (GFM). The CMO issuing the
report shall request the supplier prepare a SF 368. If the supplier cannot or will not
initiate the document, QA personnel shall complete the form in PDREP.
8.1. For supplier initiated SF 368s, QA personnel shall verify the supplier’s
Report Control Number (RCN) is constructed properly.

8.1.1. The DODAAC portion of the RCN shall be replaced by the CAGE code of the
supplier in receipt of the defective GFM, preceded by the number "0".
8.1.2. The CMO cognizant of the supplier receiving the deficient material shall be
identified as the screening point in block 2a of the SF 368 unless otherwise directed
by the customer.
8.1.3. QA personnel shall verify and annotate concurrence with the supplier's
findings in Block 22 of the SF 368.
  8.2. QA personnel shall then forward the SF 368 through the ACO to the Procuring
Contracting Officer (PCO) within 5 days of receipt of the SF 368.
 8.3. QA personnel shall send a copy of the SF 368 to the CMO DRPM
8.4. Shipping/Packaging Deficiencies - When the discrepancy is related to
shipping, packaging or carrier, QA personnel shall follow the procedures above
except the discrepancy will be reported on a SF 364 and distribution shall be as
described in DLAI 4140.55, Reporting of Supply Discrepancies. If the
discrepancy is related to a transportation matter, the Transportation Officer shall
be notified.
8.5. Industrial Plant Equipment (IPE) - QA personnel shall follow the
shipping/packaging procedure except a SF 364 (in PDREP) is used to document the
discrepancy and the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) is the action office.
One copy of the SF 364 shall be sent to the ACO and Property Administrator.
9. Close the Investigation - When closing an investigation the reply shall
include an assessment of current production and inventory and the results of a
record review of both supplier and government data. The results of the
investigation shall provide the customer with information that can be used to
prevent recurrence of; damage in the field, mistakes in the design or acquisition
process or incorrect testing occurring at the using activities.

 9.1. QA personnel shall document results of PQDR investigations on the DLA Form
1227 supplied in PDREP. (See DLA Form 1227 instructions). Depending on the
results of the investigation, the Government Industry Data Exchange Program
(GIDEP) Representative for the CMO may issue a GIDEP Alert or other form of
Failure Experience Data Interchange (FEDI) report. Refer to GIDEP.
  9.2. CMO Commanders/Directors shall approve final PQDR responses for CAT I
PQDRs prior to DRPM’s release. DRPM shall document Commander’s approval in
PDREP. CAT II PQDRs shall be reviewed by first line supervisor or delegee prior to
release.
9.3. The DRPM or delegee shall release the final DLA Form 1227 and interim
responses to the Action Point.

10. Disposition Investigation Documents - The PQDR exhibits are Government
Property and require disposition instructions from the Action Point. If instructions
have not been received with the report, QA personnel or the DRPM shall request
disposition instructions utilizing PDREP. QA personnel shall provide the supplier
with a copy of the disposition instructions and shall assure the PQDR exhibit is
returned to the government in accordance with the instructions provided from the
Action Point. If there is loss, damage or destruction of government property while in
the custody of the supplier or sub-supplier, the property administrator shall be
notified. If the exhibit is obvious scrap, QA personnel or DRPM shall coordinate the
handling of the exhibit with the Plant Clearance Officer. QA personnel shall upload
into PDREP the Material Inspection & Receiving Report (MIRR) (replacement items),
DD1149 (repairs or scrap), or commercial shipping document that indicates the
exhibit disposition instructions have been executed. QA personnel shall issue the
Exhibit Return Letter from PDREP informing the Action Point that exhibit disposition
has been accomplished.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
     X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
                                                                          0
Total OBS   % Effective
   0




             #DIV/0!
           1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                            DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                         TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Data Collection & Analysis

       1. QA personnel shall plan data collection and evaluation (data analysis). Data
       analysis shall be included in the surveillance plan and address the data to be
       collected, method and frequency of collection and analysis. A simple check sheet
       such as the Sample Data Collection and Analysis Plan included in the Tools and
       Guidance section may be used to facilitate data collection and analysis.
          1.1. The method used for the evaluation of the various data may range from a
          thorough simultaneous review from all sources to a detailed review of data related to
          a specific problem area, such as receipt of a customer complaint.

          1.2. The frequency of evaluation shall take into account the type and volume
          of data to be reviewed, as well as the impact on product quality which could
          result from failure to identify adverse trends. The recommended frequency for
          evaluation and analysis monthly for resident facilities and quarterly for non-resident
          facilities based on volume of material produced. For active suppliers, data
          collection and analysis shall be performed, as a minimum, every six months.
          If the supplier provides material on an infrequent basis, the frequency can be
          extended to an annual review.

       2. QA personnel shall collect supplier, government, customer/user data and
       other data elements in accordance with the surveillance plan. Collection of
       supplier data should be exercised using contractual prerogatives of access and review.
       This does not imply that supplier data shall be specially created, duplicated or
       requested in bulk for the required evaluation. The QAR shall determine those
       documents which reflect the most significant actions related to quality.
            2.1. Types of data to be analyzed include:
            Supplier Data:
               Records of inspections and tests
               Records of controls applied to production, material treatment, and test
               procedures
               Supplier process yield
               Records of repair, rework, or scrap
               Records of Material Review Board (MRB) actions
               Records of request for concessions (formerly known as waivers) or deviation
               permits

               Records reflecting quality requirements imposed on vendors and suppliers and
               objective evidence attesting to the quality of supplies or services.
               Corrective Action Requests (CARs)
               Any other documented record, analysis, or report that has a direct or indirect
               influence on the quality or the product or services
               Process Capability Index (Cpk)
        Control Charts
        Cost of Quality
     Government Data:
        Records of inspections and tests performed or witnessed
        Results of Quality System audits
        Results of Process Reviews
        Results of special audits or investigations conducted at the supplier’s facility by 
        other Government personnel
        Corrective Action Records
        Pre-award Survey reports
        Data collected during surveillance by the Host Nation QAR based on a DCMA
        requests for GCQA
        Customer/user data:
        Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs)
        First Article Testing (Government)
        Other records, reports, letters or messages (including email) that provide
        comments or data relative to QA responsibilities

        Results of investigations and actions taken as a result of user Quality Data
     Other Data Elements:
        Active investigations of alleged supplier misconduct by departmental or military
        services investigative services

          Reports of non-conformance communicated through Government Industry Data
          Exchange Program (GIDEP) Business concerns such as bankruptcy, habitual
          late delivery and excessive corrective actions from a prime suppliers
   2.2. Collection of data does not require maintenance of separate or duplicate file
   copies for the specific purpose of evaluation. However, the QAR may find it
   advantageous to maintain certain records for continuous review of trends.
3. QA personnel shall perform periodic evaluation of data (data analysis). Data
analysis is conducted to obtain an overall assessment of the supplier’s quality effort; 
identify trends; deficiencies repeatedly overlooked by the supplier; process stability and
process capability; and repeated rejections or high scrap rate. Problem areas may not
appear to present a major impact when considered an isolated event however;
recognition of similar problems in several areas could indicate a lack of management
controls.

4. QA personnel shall use supplier, government, customer/user data and other
data elements to adjust the surveillance plan or take appropriate actions.
Customer complaints traceable to a deficiency in the supplier’s operation may indicate 
the need to intensify surveillance to preclude the shipment of defective material.
Repeated rejection or high scrap rate in a particular supplier operation may indicate a
lack of supplier process controls and the need for intensified surveillance. Comparison
of current and previous results may indicate trends and should be used as a basis to
adjust (intensify or reduce) surveillance. When data indicates that customer-
imposed mandatory inspections should be discontinued, QA personnel shall
communicate in writing with the customer, explaining why efforts should be
redirected and requesting customer relief. Mandatory inspections shall continue
to be performed until relief is granted.
    4.1. Contractor data should be treated as For Official Use Only (FOUO) and
    appropriately protected to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure.
5. QA personnel shall record results of data analysis. Data analysis records shall
identify, as a minimum, the date of the analysis, individual performing the
analysis, data analyzed, results of analysis (conclusions) and any actions taken
as a result of the analysis. Results of data analysis shall be recorded either
electronically or on paper.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
Date
    1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST
REVIEWER:                            DATE:
TECH SPEC:                         TEAM:




Requirement
Corrective Action
1. Analyze supplier work requirements and determine need to delegate - Prime suppliers are responsible
for their subcontractor’s performance. There are instances where CMOs may determine DCMA needs to
delegate specific commitments, tasks, or activities to ensure subcontractor performance or to validate
prime supplier controls. DCMA personnel shall monitor supplier activities associated with their specific
functions and initiate delegations to receiving CMOs at the subcontract and further sub-tier levels as
appropriate to accomplish necessary contract oversight or the performance of a specific task, function or
performance indicator. These delegations can be for any of the contract administration services which have
been delegated to DCMA, including business and technical functions. Contract management at the subcontract
level is intended to assure that the Government's best interests are served, not the prime suppliers' interests.
1.1. Functional Specialist determines workload is essential to contract performance and that the
DCMA personnel shall assure that delegated work requirements - Sender shall analyze work requirement(s)
and determine the need for a delegation. Factors affecting the need for issuing delegations are addressed in
FAR 46.405 to include:
- The item is to be shipped from the subcontractor's facility to the using activity and inspection at source is
required                                            - The contract specifies that certain quality assurance
functions, which can only be performed at the subcontractor's facility, are to be performed by the
government
- It is otherwise required by the contract or determined to be in the government's best interest such as high
consequence risk or the surveillance plan identifies risks associated with:
                              - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) work. All NASA sub-tier
delegations are made in ECARS
- Navy Special Emphasis Program work                                                      - Mission critical items
(MCI), Critical Safety Items (CSI) and Safety of Flight (SOF) items (e.g. critical characteristics or processes that
can not be appropriately verified upon receipt at the prime supplier’s facility.)
- Negative subcontractor performance history e.g. Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) investigations
attributable to the subcontractor, high level of failures at the prime supplier caused by subcontracted items,
etc.
- Surveillance activity for a process which has high or moderate risk impact or consequence of failure and the
output cannot be verified by subsequent monitoring / measurement or deficiencies affect operational
usefulness and become apparent only after the product is in use or the service has been delivered
- Surveillance that may not feature delegations:Non-critical high or moderate risk items Low risk
1.1.2. Factorsactivities for a require / characteristic which has items , Non-complex impact,or consequence
supplier; Features, characteristics, and processes with minimal influence/impact on contract performance
; moderate and low risk impact or consequence of failure with positive subcontractor performance
history
2. Open lines of communication - Sender shall open lines of communication with receiving CMO(s) prior to
delegating to ensure requirements are understood and will maintain communication throughout the life of
2.1. Where a place of performance is identified in a contract, the sending CMO shall notify the CMO
cognizant of the subcontractor of the contract, including the contract number and CAGE code or provide
a copy of the contract when not available through Electronic Data Access (EDA) . The CMO cognizant
of the subcontractor shall obtain the contract through EDA. Personnel at both locations shall
communicate to assure that each party clearly understands the relationship between the prime supplier
and the subcontractor and that all appropriate requirements and responsibilities are communicated. If
there is a need for more specific instruction to be flowed down to receiving CMOs at these locations, or
where functions beyond QA are necessary at the place of performance, DCMA sending CMOs shall
issue delegations to receiving CMOs to ensure that activities and mandatory requirements are complied
with and understood. Note: Place of Performance and Direct Shipments are not synonymous terms or
situations. Place of Performance contracts may identify line items that are to be shipped directly to the
Government. However, irrespective of the type of contract, direct shipments to the Government from a
  2.3. The sender and receiver shall make a determination regarding any special considerations and
determine the specific type of delegation needed. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to:
      2.3.1. Corporation Inter/Intra-Divisional Work Transfer - Where contract performance is shared
between different divisions within the same major corporate entity, the sending CMO cognizant of the
division that is identified in the contract shall delegate to the receiving CMO cognizant of the division
involved with performance. Typically, the company will use an inter-divisional work order to document this
transfer of responsibility between divisions. DCMA Offices at corporate locations should be aware of this
workload and engage with the supplier to gain insight into those work requirements.
    2.3.2. Blanket delegations may be issued where issuance of individual delegations would be an
administrative burden and for a particular group of purchase orders for:
       Surveillance of repetitive processes or tasks in a facility
       Purchases of the same or similar items
       Specific efforts in a particular facility
  2.3.2.1. Blanket delegations shall delegations least to, or received from that they Government for the
2.3.3. Host Nation delegations arebe reissued atissuedannually to document a foreign are still appropriate.
exchange of contract management services and are issued by the cognizant DCMAI CMO. DCMA CONUS
to DCMA OCONUS delegations shall be processed in accordance with this policy; however, when sending
delegations to or receiving delegations from a foreign Government the International Agreement /
International Memoranda of Agreements / Host Nation Contract Management Services Instruction or the
International and Federal Business Reimbursable and Non-Reimbursable Support Instruction shall take
precedence as applicable. Note: When receiving a delegation from a foreign Government, DCMA is the Host
Nation.
2.3.4. Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) support investigation requests shall be delegated to the sub-
tier location via the Product Deficiency Report and Evaluation Program (PDREP).
2.3.5. International Traffic in Arms Regulation / Export Administration Regulation (ITAR/EAR) are the
implementing regulations for export control laws established by the Arms Export Control Act / Export
Administration Act (AECA/EAA), respectively, that prohibits the unauthorized transfer of defense
articles, defense services, related technical data, commodities, information, technology, and software to
foreign persons. If export-control requirements are imposed on the prime contract and the prime supplier
intends to sub-contract to a foreign supplier, the prime CMO shall contact the prime supplier to determine if,
during the performance of the sub-contract, the sub-supplier will generate or require access to export-
controlled articles or technical data. If the sub-supplier will generate or will require access to export-
controlled articles or technical data, DCMA personnel at the prime shall ensure that subcontracts / purchase
orders, and delegations to the CAS component cognizant of the subcontractor identify ITAR / EAR restrictions,
the appropriate DFARS clause, and the number and expiration date of the applicable export license.
Delegating CMOs should send a copy of the export license to the sub-tier CMO if available. See the Export
Control Instructions (TDP) for additional requirements prior to issuing delegations. Note: The supplier is
responsible for compliance with ITAR / EAR, not DCMA. However, violations of the ITAR / EAR by DCMA
personnel carry civil and criminal penalties under U.S. law that could include up to $1 M in fines or up to 10
years in prison. Agency administrative sanctions are also possible up to and including termination of
employment.
  2.3.6. DCMA Centers - Centers receive delegations from and issue delegations to other Centers and
CMOs. The prime CMO is responsible for identifying other organizations whose assistance is necessary
for contract oversight. It is the ACO's responsibility to coordinate with the Centers to understand how
work effort is to be delegated to them, because work is not automatically directed to the Centers in
Electronic Document Workflow.
2.4. Communication shall be documented. Any mode of communication is acceptable.
3. Prepare and Send Delegation - The delegation shall be sent after initial communications have been
completed whether or not all issues have been resolved.
 3.1. Delegations shall include appropriate documents, e.g., support contracts, purchase orders, source of
Customer Directed Activity shall be requested to incorporate government access rights risk statements.
3.1.1. The prime supplier (MOA, QALI if applicable), specific regulatory requirements, orinto the applicable
subcontract to ensure timely government access to the subcontractor facility. Assure the access wording
is consistent with the Government rights expressed in the prime contract, reference FAR 52.246-2
through 8.
  3.2. Delegations shall include specific tasks which shall be performed, e.g. critical characteristics for CSI,
SOF characteristics, post-award financial analysis, and Property Administration. These tasks shall be the
result of the communication between the sender and receiver.
3.3. Delegations for Quality Assurance support shall include or reference the location in the appropriate
documents as applicable:
    Appropriate quality / inspection system requirements
    Appropriate and accurate technical requirements or reference thereto
     Identification of critical may result in critical product characteristics, and critical processes
     System safety risks that safety items, catastrophic failure (i.e. Failure Modes and Effect Criticality
Analysis (FMECA) category 1)
    Required personnel, system, process, or material certifications
    Subcontractor/supplier authority relative to processing waivers and deviations
    Requirements relative to subcontractor generated plans, i.e. quality plans, risk management plans,
frozen manufacturing planning, configuration management plans, etc.
     Requirements relative to frozen/locked configurations, design reviews, configuration management
requirements and audits, first article inspection and/or specific testing requirements; and Instructions
     Earned Value requirements
     When applicable, ITAR restrictions, appropriate ITAR DFARS clause, and the number and
expiration date, of the applicable export license
3.4. The QA/PA Delegation eTool shall be used to delegate contract administration functions. The
exceptions are those which utilize the ECARS system, e.g., International and NASA delegations.
3.5. Delegation of surveillance for classified programs shall be processed in accordance with supplemental
instructions maintained by the Special Programs Directorate.
4. Acknowledge the delegation - The receiver shall analyze delegated work requirement(s) and assign a
lead for a multi-functional delegation. Once requirements are determined at the functional level, the
receiving CMO shall Accept, Accept with Limitations, or Reject Delegation. Decisions shall be made within 10
work days. Each CMO should identify the level within the organization to accept or reject delegations. The
Commander, Director, or designee shall be informed of the rationale for limited acceptance or rejection. The
reference to designee for limited acceptance or rejection of delegations is operationally defined as the
individual formally identified in writing by the Commander/Director to act with the full authority of the
5. Rejection of Delegation - Where receiving CMO resources are limited in functional areas, limited
acceptance of the delegation should be discussed and negotiated with the sender. Only the receiving
CMO Commander/Director or Center Director or their designee can reject a delegation. CMOs should
assess workload across their organization and prioritize new delegations against existing workload. If a
mutual agreement is reached on a limited delegation, further escalation is not required. The applicable
Regional Commander(s) and HQ Operations Directorate shall be informed of any delegation which is rejected.
 5.1. The following additional steps shall be taken when a delegation is rejected for resource related issues:
       CMO Commander/Director or designee elevates to Regional Commander or their designee of their
inability to support the delegation request
                              FTE can be resources and skills are or permanently, the Region
        Region determines if the required reallocated, temporarily available within to CMO requested to
perform delegation.
        If Region can not support delegation, elevate to HQ Operations Directorate level to determine if
assets are available from other Regions or HQ assets
 5.1.1. If required, inform Customer of inability than resource related, e.g., the
5.2. When a rejection occurs for reasons otherof DCMA to support workload. factors referenced in
paragraph 1.1, the applicable issue shall be elevated to the HQ Operations Directorate and copied to the
Regional Commander or designee.
6. Re-delegate - The receiving CMO can re-delegate throughout the supply chain, as required. The same
process as described in paragraphs 1- 5 shall be followed with the initial delegating CMO.
7. Execute the delegation - The receiver shall perform the delegated work requirement(s) in accordance
with applicable agency mission policies. When the delegated DCMA surveillance activity is the same as the
prime supplier representative's activity, e.g., mandatory inspection point, DCMA's effort should be after the
prime supplier's representative has accomplished the activity and accepted the result.
8. Manage delegated workload - The sender shall manage the workload including tracking the status of
open delegations and performance, and identifying required changes to the delegation. The receiver shall
manage, track, and measure work accomplished.
8.1. For blanket delegations, the need for continued support shall be documented and the delegation
updated at least annually.
8.2. Close the delegation - The receiver closes the delegation and informs the sender that efforts have
been completed, including any lessons learned not already identified. Records of work performed in
support of the delegation shall be retained in accordance with Records Management instruction.
8.3. Provide feedback - The receiver shall communicate with the sender on a regular basis, keeping them
informed of performance status, significant issues, and concerns. After the delegation is completed, the
receiver and sender shall discuss any lessons learned.
                          ASSESSMENT



Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
     X
3                                                                    4
FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION



                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
                                                                          0
Total OBS   % Effective
   0
#DIV/0!
           1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                            DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                         TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       First Article Testing

       1. Identify First Article Test Contractual Requirement – Normally, there are two
       methods by which first article testing requirements appear in contracts. 1) Contractor
       Testing, FAR 52.209-3 which requires the contractor to perform the actual testing and
       submit a test report to the PCO through the QAR or 2) Government Testing, FAR
       52.209-4, which provides for the Government to perform the actual testing to verify
       the product, conforms to specification.

        1.1 Normally a Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) invokes the requirement for FAT
        or Test Report with an associated DD form 1423 Contract Data Requirements List
        (CDRL) that references a Data Item Description (DID) as the requirement. Further
        guidance concerning QAR responsibilities may be provided to the QAR through
        various customer communications including, but not limited to, a Quality Assurance
        Letter of Instruction (QALI).

       2. Determine Need for Technical Assistance - If the QAR is unfamiliar with first article
       testing requirements, is unfamiliar with the associated manufacturing processes, lacks
       the technical expertise to independently inspect or test the first article units, or
       believes it creates an unmanageable workload requirement the QAR shall request
       technical assistance from their supervisor and explain the circumstances. The
       supervisor shall assure that adequate technical or resource requirements are provided
       to assure accomplishment of FAT requirements. The QAR shall keep a record of the
       request for technical assistance and the support provided with the first article test
       requirements.

       3. Schedule and Conduct QA-Post-Award Conference (QA-PAOC) - The QAR shall
       arrange and conduct a QA-PAOC with the supplier per the policy outlined in PAOC
       Policy. All personnel scheduled to provide technical assistance to the QAR should
       attend the meeting. As a minimum, the QAR shall review and discuss the specific first
       article contractual requirements, required plans or reports, QAR inspection hold
       points, and inspections or tests to be performed by the supplier and/or DCMA at
       subcontractor’s locations. The QAR shall document the minutes of the meeting
       including, attendees, actions to be taken, suspense dates, and clarifications provided
       to the supplier. The minutes shall be distributed to all attendees and personnel
       providing technical assistance. The QA-PAOC record shall be maintained in official
       the contract file.
4.    Develop FAT Surveillance Strategy – The QAR shall develop and document a
strategy for performing surveillance of the contractually required FAT.
 4.1      Contractor Testing – The strategy shall:

       Verify the supplier’s inspection of critical or major product characteristics
   or processes identified in the FAT/I report by independently inspecting or
   witnessing the supplier’s inspection or testing of these characteristics. This
   includes characteristics or processes performed at subcontractors.
       If sampling is authorized, perform sample verification of all other (non-
   critical or non-major) product characteristics or processes to the degree
   necessary to establish confidence of product conformance to technical
   specifications.
       If required by contract, ensure the manufacturing processes, materials,
   and facilities used to produce the FAT/I product are the same as those to be
   used to produce production runs.

      Ensure the test report clearly demonstrates the products conformance to
   technical specifications. Perform any other activities requested by QALI.
4.2      Government Testing – The strategy shall:

       Ensure the supplier’s inspection and test records clearly demonstrate the
   products conformance to technical specifications. The records will be sent to
   the approval authority when required by contract.
       If required by contract, ensure the manufacturing processes, materials,
   and facilities used to produce the FAT product are the same as those to be
   used to produce production runs.
      Perform any other activities requested by QALI.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
           1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                             DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                          TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       GCQA Planning

       1.  The QAR documents surveillance strategy- – The QAR shall document a 
       Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. Surveillance strategies may be
       based on a specific contract, program or facility. The surveillance plans will vary based
       on the contractual quality and technical requirements and associated risk.
         1.1 The minimum documentation requirements for a Government Contract Quality
         Assurance (GCQA) Surveillance Plan are: ·


        Contractor/Supplier Name, CAGE, & Address ·

        Supplier point of contact (note: probably should be addressed in profile form) ·
          QAR(s) name ·
          Identify whether Program or Item managed (or both) ·
          Program name or contract # (for Program or Contract plan) ·
          Type of plan (Facility Wide, Contract, or Program) ·
          Contract Quality Requirement ·
          Risk Statements ·
          Risk Causes ·
          Results of Risk Impact assessments ·
          Results of Risk Likelihood Assessments ·
          Planned and scheduled surveillance activities ·
          The location of surveillance records
        1.2. The overall scope of surveillance activity will be based upon the results of
        the QAR’s risk assessment and traceable to each applicable risk statement.
        ·
          Risk impact influences the scope (amount and depth) of GCQA surveillance
          activities while risk likelihood influences the frequency and intensity of GCQA
          surveillance activity. Where the likelihood of occurrence is high, GCQA surveillance
          should be performed more frequently until the likelihood of occurrence is reduced to
          an acceptable level. ·

          Risk impact cannot be influenced by GCQA surveillance; however the scope and
          depth of the GCQA should be influenced by the risk impact. The greater the risk
          impact, the greater the scope should be of the GCQA surveillance. Higher risk
          impacts might require system, process, and product surveillance whereas lower risk
          impacts might only require occasional reviews of the supplier’s control mechanisms.
1.3 Documented surveillance plans shall identify or reference the planned
surveillance activities that address each risk statement and risk cause identified
during contract review and risk assessment. The plan will address each item,
product, process, or system identified as a potential risk cause and identify the
method(s), frequency, intensity (formerly level of effort) and schedule (If
applicable) of surveillance.
 1.3.1 When the identified risk cause is a Quality Management System (QMS) or
 a specific QMS element the plan shall identify system audit(s) in accordance
 with the QMS Chapter as part of surveillance methodology. The plans shall:
 ·
   Identify the specific audit method(s) (Full or Partial or Monitoring of internal audits) to
   be used.

   Identify the elements to be audited if less than a full audit is identified, ·
    Include schedules for planned audits.
  1.3.2 When the risk cause is identified as a process, the plan shall identify
  Process Review and/or Product Examination as a part of surveillance
  methodology.
1.3.2.1     The process review portion of the process surveillance plan shall
include the type of Process Review (Full or Incremental), frequency (when
applicable), and schedule (when applicable).
1.3.2.1.1 When the identified risk cause is a special process the plan shall
identify it as such and shall always include periodic process reviews. (See the
special process definition)
 1.3.2.2     The Product Examination portion of the process surveillance plan
shall identify the process outputs to be verified and shall be IAW paragraph
1.3.3. below.
1.3.3. When the Risk Cause is identified as a product
characteristic or feature, the plan shall identify Product
Examination as part of surveillance methodology.

1.3.3.1. Product Examination should be planned and performed as early in
the manufacturing process as practicable. The higher the performance risk
(likelihood) the greater the need for in process product evaluations.

1.3.3.2. Product Examination plans shall identify the characteristics to be
verified as well as the intensity and frequency of planned product examinations.
All three elements are subject to change based on subsequent analyses and risk
assessment. Characteristics selected should be those with the highest impact.
1.3.3.2.1. Specific characteristics to be verified may be identified on the
surveillance plan or on referenced inspection records such as 1711 forms. (add
Link to eform)
1.3.3.2.1.1 When known characteristics should be identified as Critical, Major,
or Minor in the plan. Sampling applied will be dependent upon criticality of the
selected characteristics.
1.3.3.2.2. Multiple characteristics of the same product may be verified using
product examinations with different frequencies and intensities.
1.3.3.3. Product Examination shall be performed in accordance with the
Product Examination instruction.

2. Document Plan to determine whether the supplier has an Inspection System
that is acceptable to the government. Regardless of Quality requirement, FAR
52.246-2 requires the supplier submit only known conforming material for
acceptance based on an inspection system that is acceptable to the government.
Documented GCQA surveillance activities should address how the QAR made
the determination that the suppliers inspection system was acceptable for the
products supplied. The following characteristics, as applicable to any given
contract, provide a basis for making that determination:
2.1. Planning-

Does the contractor have copies of drawings with proper revision level and date?
Does contractor have copies of all applicable specifications?
Has the contractor correctly identified packaging requirements?
Has the contractor correctly identified marking requirements including IUID &
RFID?
The contractor is familiar with WAWF and the processing requirements
(including IUID data requirements?
Has the contractor identified NDT requirements?
Has contractor identified QPL items and suppliers?
Has the contractor identified all process requirements which need procedures
approval?
Does the contractor provide access to adequate facilities and
equipment to support government source inspection?
Does the contractor assure that sub-contractors provide access to adequate
facilities and equipment to support government source inspection?

Has the contractor passed all applicable technical and quality requirements to
suppliers?
2.2 Inspection
Does the contractor have an adequate selection of calibrated inspection
equipment for examination of this item?
Does the contractor maintain an acceptable calibration system which includes
records, traceability to NIST and a recall system?
Does the contractor maintain records of all inspections and tests which indicate
the nature and number of observations made, the type and number of
deficiencies found, and quantities approved and rejected?
    Does the contractor understand and use statistically valid sampling plans?
2.3. Corrective Action/NCM/etc.
Does the contractor have a system for assuring the quality of purchased material?

Does the contractor have a system for identifying and segregating
nonconforming material?
Does the contractor understand the requirements for presenting nonconforming
material to the government for acceptance?
 Does the contractor maintain records of corrective action which address
correction as to cause to prevent recurrence?
The contractor is familiar with WAWF and the processing requirements (including
IUID data requirements?
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
     X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                        DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                     TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       NASA

        1. Receive NASA Form 1430, Letter of Contract Administration Delegation and
        applicable functional delegations - Contract Management Offices (CMOs)
        receive Letters of Delegation (LoDs) electronically through the eTools
        Electronic Contract Administration Request System (ECARS) Web-Based
        application or in "hard copy" outside of ECARS. The Program Support Team
        (PST) Lead or the Functional Specialist (FS) shall create a service request in
        ECARS if the LoD is received hard copy outside of ECARS.

         1.1. Each CMO or HQ Operations/International Directorates with multiple NASA
        suppliers shall assign a coordinator as the central point of contact for NASA
        issues within the CMO/Directorate. When NASA workload does not warrant a
        CMO level Coordinator, the NASA Coordinator should be at the Directorate level.

         1.2. ECARS supports the preparation and management of Contract
        Administration Services (CAS) requests from NASA when the customer creates
        the request online. CMOs shall designate a point of contact (POC) within
        ECARS. When a LOD is received, an email is automatically routed to the CMO
        ECARS POC and a document control number (DCN) is automatically generated.

           1.3. The CMO ECARS POC shall notify / remind the PST Lead, and/or FS of
        requests awaiting action, including work being coordinated with DCMA Centers
        i.e. Property, Plant Clearance, etc. The ACO shall be notified when the
        delegation involves business support functions such as negotiations,
        cost/pricing, or contract close-out support.
        2. Review LoD - Prior to LoD acceptance, the PST Lead and/or FS shall conduct
        a review of the LoD to determine delegated activities and required level of
        support prior to the LoD acceptance/rejection.
2.1. Multi-functional delegations shall be reviewed by each FS e.g. QA,
Property, Plant Clearance, Cost/Pricing, Earned Value, etc, to determine
delegated activities.

    2.1.1. PST members and/or FS shall perform contract review. Reference
Contract Receipt & Review. When timely receipt/access to NASA contracts and
associated modifications are problematic, the issue should be elevated through
CMO management for resolution.

        2.1.1.1. QA personnel shall conduct a Contract Technical Review and
identify:

   - Government Mandatory Inspection Points (GMIPs)
   - Processes requiring special training / certification requirements e.g. NASA
Workmanship Standards Training (WST) or Non-Destructive Test (NDT)
   - Reporting requirements to include customer mandated tools e.g. Quality
Leading Indicator (QLI) eTool, CxP Procurement Quality Assurance (PQA)
database

2.1.2. All FS shall determine the level of support and specialized training /
certification required by the delegated activities and communicate resource
needs and constraints to their immediate supervisor. The FS shall update their
electronic Individual Development Plan (eIDP) to include new training
requirements.

    2.1.3. Supervisors shall validate if additional resources are required
considering the nature of the item (critical safety or complexity), specialized
processes; government oversight (100% witness vs. verify) or Insight; or the
need to support multiple shifts, extended work hours, overtime, etc.
Supervisors shall communicate resource needs and constraints through the
CMO chain of command prior to acceptance/rejection of the LoD.


3. Accept/Reject LoD - The Commander or the formally designated
representative shall accept, accept with modification or reject the LoD.
Designated representatives shall have the authority to make resource
commitments. Prior to rejecting or accepting the delegation with modifications
a dialog shall be established with the delegator to negotiate proposed changes.
All changes shall be documented in a revised delegation or as described in
paragraph 3.3. When the customer does not initiate the LoD in ECARS, the
NASA Form 1431, Letter of Acceptance of Contract Administration shall be
used, to include identification of points of contact for each functional area. This
action shall be accomplished within the timeframe specified in the LoD but not
more than 30 calendar days as specified in NPR 8735.2A Chapter 5.2.2.2.

The NASA Form 1431 with original signature shall be sent to the delegator. A
copy of the notification of acceptance/rejection for LoDs shall be scanned and
uploaded into ECARS. All rejected LoDs shall be coordinated through the
respective Directorate and/or NASA Product Operations (NPO). When the
customer initiates a delegation in ECARS the acceptance / rejection of the
delegation is accomplished electronically through ECARS.
 3.1. The CMO shall notify the delegator if acknowledgment can not occur within
 the designated timeframe. The reason for the delay and expected time of
 completion shall be discussed and documented in accordance with 3.3.

 3.2. Upon acceptance of the LoD, the PST Lead or FS shall immediately contact
the originator to establish and maintain two way communication for the duration
of the delegation. When DCMA is co-located with a NASA Resident Management
Office (RMO), every effort must be made to minimize duplication of effort.
  3.3. The CMO shall honor verbal requests and/or changes from authorized
NASA personnel. A memo for record (MFR) shall be documented and sent for
confirmation to the requestor. Upon receipt of confirmation the MFR shall be
uploaded into ECARS and placed into the official contract file e.g. Electronic
Document Workflow (EDW). If confirmation is not received by the requested
reply date, the CMO shall follow-up with NASA to ensure confirmation is received.
MFR shall include as a minimum:

 - details of the conversation
 - specifics of the requested action
 - name and contact information of the individual requesting the change
 - request for written confirmation of the change
 - reply by date


4. Issue Letters of Re-delegations - If re-delegation authority is authorized in the
LoD and necessary to accomplish the prime LoD requirements, the re-delegation
shall be issued via ECARS. Re-delegations should be issued within 15 calendar
days of acceptance of the prime LoD and issuance of the lower tier subcontract.
For multifunctional delegations that involve work to be performed by a DCMA
Center, the receiving CMO ECARS POC shall re-delegate to the Center within
ECARS.
4.1. The LoD template in NPR 8735.2A Appendix C provides requirements and
sample text for NASA LoDs and shall be used to re-delegate. A copy of the
original LoD shall be provided to the re-delegated DCMA office.
4.2. The receipt, review and workload acceptance steps identified in paragraphs
1, 2 and 3 above shall be followed. The re-delegated DCMA office should accept,
accept with modification or reject the re-delegation in ECARS within 10 days of
receipt.
5. Perform Post Award Orientation Conference (PAOC) - When a new NASA
delegation is received that involves new requirements or work not previously
performed, the PST Lead or FS shall recommend a PAOC to the ACO, (see the
Contract Receipt and Review guidance). QA personnel shall conduct QA PAOCs
as required in the QA PAOC Instruction.
6. Generate Program / Project Surveillance Plan - When required by delegation,
PST members and/or FS shall develop a surveillance plan and submit to the
delegator for approval within 30 calendar days of LoD acceptance or as
negotiated with the delegator.

  6.1 Surveillance plans shall address the requirements specified in the LoD and
NPR 8735.2A to include:

  - the applicable NASA Project/Program, contract number / purchase order
number, and related DCNs
  - the applicable higher level NASA Directives, Quality Management System
(QMS) requirements etc.
  - an organization chart showing primary and back-up personnel assigned
including series and job titles
           - In small residencies, nonresident facilities, and on single function
delegations, the name(s) of the assigned FS and the immediate supervisor is
sufficient in lieu of an organization chart
   - certification and training status of assigned personnel; by name, functional
area, and courses completed
   - a training schedule for personnel requiring training and certification in NASA
requirements
the strategy for conducting contract review and documenting the results
   - the strategy for conducting and documenting review of the contractors
quality system procedures, technical products (e.g., data, drawings), and
manufacturing work instructions to include the method and frequency of the
review
   - the surveillance strategy as derived from the delegated activities including
how delegated functions for product quality are performed and documented i.e.
methods such as product examination (GMIPs), process review, and record
review (See para 6.1.1.)


  - a schedule of reviews of the supplier's Quality Management System (QMS)
based on those delegated elements (NPR 8735.2A Chapter 2.5.). Reviews may be
conducted as a single process review or as a combination of incremental
reviews. The frequency shall be no less than once every two years.
  - data analysis strategy in accordance with the Data Collection and Analysis
instruction
  - typically the process for documenting nonconformities and issuing Corrective
Action Requests (CARs) is in accordance with Corrective Action (CAR)
instruction. However when the delegation specifies, the NASA Discrepancy
Report (NDR) shall be used. When the delegation directs the use of NDRs by
DCMA, the nonconformity shall still be logged in accordance with the DCMA
Corrective Action (CAR) instruction. In addition, all CARs / NDRs shall be
negotiated with the NASA POC prior to issuance to the contractor. All decisions
shall be documented in accordance with paragraph 3.3 above.
   - strategy for review and evaluation of the contractor's training, certification,
and recertification of personnel for critical processes
6.1.1. Develop a strategy for conducting government "Insight" - When "insight"
is delegated, QA personnel shall develop and document in the Program / Project
Surveillance Plan an insight strategy. NASA defines government insight as
"gaining understanding necessary to knowledgeably concur with Contractor’s
actions through watchful observation, inspection, or review of program events,
documents, meetings, test, audits, hardware etc., without approval/disapproval
authority". QA personnel shall coordinate with the supplier to determine
surveillance opportunities, production schedules etc. Government Contract
Quality Assurance (GCQA) activities shall be performed throughout the supplier's
production and on a non-interference basis. GMIPs shall not be established
unless authorized by NASA delegator and documented in accordance with
paragraph 3.3.

 6.1.2. Surveillance plans shall be revised, as necessary. The plan and its
revisions shall be submitted to the cognizant delegator for approval. Personnel
training and assignment changes may be documented in accordance with
paragraph 3.3. Plan revisions should be annotated with a revision number or
date. As a minimum the plan shall be reviewed annually to determine need for
revision. This review shall be documented.

 6.2. PST Lead or FS shall prepare and submit an initial Surveillance Status
Report, also known as the Monthly Status Report (MSR), describing the
personnel hours planned for surveillance of the corresponding contractor
activities in accordance with NPR 8735.2A Appendix C, section 5.e.

7. Execute surveillance strategy - PST members and/or FS shall execute the
delegated activities in accordance with the surveillance plan. QA personnel shall
execute all surveillance activities described in the Program / Project Surveillance
Plan and associated documents (i.e. Mandatory Inspection Document (MID)/GMIP
instructions) and Product Assurance Instruction section 3.5.

 7.1. GMIPs shall be performed 100% and exactly as stated in the LOD. GMIPs
shall be performed after contractor personnel have made their acceptance
decisions, except in those cases where concurrent inspections/tests are
necessary due to destructive testing or to prevent excessive costs or potential
time delays. If the LOD has stated “inspect” and a concurrent effort is necessary,
the FS shall coordinate with the customer to change the GMIP from “inspect” to
“witness”. This shall be documented in accordance with paragraph 3.3. GMIPs
shall not be sampled, waived, or deviated from without prior documented
approval from NASA using a Mandatory Inspection Point MIP Variance Request
form. Any variances shall be reported on the Surveillance Status Report.

 7.1.1. When a GMIP cannot be accomplished due to extenuating circumstances,
QA personnel shall request a deviation in advance. The MIP Variance Request
form shall be processed through CMO management and the delegating CMO, if a
re-delegation, to the NASA POC.

    7.1.2. When a GMIP is missed, QA personnel shall immediately notify their
chain of command. The CMO Commander shall coordinate with DCMA's NASA
Process Steward and the delegating CMO if it is a re-delegation. The missed
GMIP shall be documented on a MIP Variance Request form and submitted to
NASA within 24 hours of discovery.
7.2. Process reviews shall be conducted as described in Product Assurance
Instruction section 3.5.
 7.3. Formal QMS audits shall be conducted as described in Product Assurance
Instruction section 3.5.
 7.4. If delegated, Material Review Board (MRB) authority and/or Failure Review
Board (FRB) activities should be conducted in accordance with Product
Assurance Guidebook, section 4.1.1. DCMA MRB members shall be approved by
NASA prior to performing MRB tasks.
 7.5. CARs shall be initiated in accordance with the Corrective Action Request
instruction by any FS. In addition, the CAR initiator shall:

   - notify their Team Lead, PST Lead, and the delegator
   - when directed by the customer, negotiate with the NASA POC prior to
issuance to the supplier and document the results in accordance with paragraph
3.3 above
   - forward copies of initiated CARs to the individual responsible for Quality
Leading Indicator (QLI) data input
   - ensure that nonconformities and problems are documented in accordance
with the contractor's trouble, malfunction, failure, and deficiency reporting and
feedback system
- immediately report conditions or situations that may compromise product
safety, reliability or functionality through the chain of command to CMO
Leadership, DCMA's NASA Process Steward, and the delegator

7.6. Surveillance Status Reports shall be provided to the delegator in accordance
with LoD requirements. Reports shall be coordinated with the PST Lead/Team
Leader prior to issuance. A copy shall be provided to the CMO NASA
Coordinator. The NASA Coordinator should escalate issues that will adversely
impact the program to DCMA's NASA Process Steward
7.7. Rotation of DCMA personnel assigned to support NASA should be kept to a
minimum. The PST Lead or FS shall notify the NASA Delegator in writing when
personnel changes occur. Assignment changes may be documented in
accordance with paragraph 3.3
8. Document results - Results of delegated or re-delegated activities shall be
documented as identified in Product Assurance Instruction section 3.10. and in
accordance with the definitions contained in the LoD.
8.1. QA personnel shall use and control DCMA inspections stamps (or NASA
stamps if provided) in accordance with QA Stamping instruction
 8.1.1. When stamping in support of NASA Letters of Delegations (LoD)/contracts,
QA personnel shall assure the application of the stamp impression or data entry
represents their professional, individual warranty (guarantee) that the
operator/inspector has personally examined the product, witnessed the process,
or verified the record as literally stated on the GMIP acceptance criteria and
surveillance plan.

 8.1.2. CMOs shall execute and maintain evidence of an annual signed statement
indicating that the QA Specialist understands that their signature, application of a
stamp, or data entry is a professional, individual warranty (guarantee) that they
personally examined the product, witnessed the process, or verified the record as
literally stated for the GMIP acceptance criteria. The Stamp Inventory Record
may be used for this purpose.
8.2. If required by delegation, an electronic system for identifying and tracking
both active and inactive GMIPs shall be used. The delegation should specify if
the electronic system is to be DCMA developed or NASA provided.

     8.2.1. When DCMA developed, the system shall provide direct traceability to
the discrete item examined, process witnessed, or record verified, including the
following, as applicable: part numbers, serial/traceability numbers, work
authorization document numbers, and operation/step numbers associated with
the GMIP. Local tools shall not duplicate Agency or Customer delegated tools.
  8.2.2. Customer developed electronic tools shall be used when delegated. If
this results in a duplication of documentation or reporting in DCMA and NASA
tools, reimbursable time shall be charged to enter/report the information in both
systems. An example would be duplicate entries in the NASA PQA database and
ECARS eTool.

8.3. When delegated, the PST Lead and/or FS shall document supplier risk in the
NASA Quality Leading Indicator (QLI) eTool. See the QLI eTool Guide and/or the
DCMA QLI User Guide for detailed information and how to access and use the
eTool. If the prime LOD authorizes re-delegation, the QLI requirement shall also
be re-delegated.

Note: This is especially important for re-delegation of subcontracted items that
are critical items, critical characteristics or safety critical GMIPs. When requested
by the customer, the CMO shall provide the NASA Customer with the Customer
QLI User Guide and EWAM User Guide. The DCMA HQ NASA Audit Team Lead
shall facilitate access to QLI for external customer.
8.4. Contract files and related surveillance records shall be retained in
accordance with the Records Management instruction.
 9. Conduct data analysis - QA personnel shall conduct data analysis in
accordance with the DCMA Data Collection and Analysis instruction to provide
insight to the NASA customer. Analysis results shall be reported in the
Surveillance Status Report and provided to the individual responsible for QLI
data input.
10.1.1. The CMO/Directorate Coordinator shall facilitate CMO support to JAPC
and NAMT external audits. The coordinator should obtain access to NASA's
Supplier Assessment System (SAS) to keep abreast of audit schedules and
changes. The CMO NASA Coordinator shall analyze internal and external audit
data to identify opportunities to provide assistance to QA Specialists. QA
personnel and/or PST Lead shall:
  - participate during the in and out brief of audits of suppliers under their
cognizance. If invited to participate in the audit it shall be as an observer.
Request for information from audit team members or audit support shall be
provided as needed
  - perform corrective action follow-up activities resulting from JAPC and NAMT
audits
  - provide a summary of audit results to the individual responsible for input into
the Quality Leading Indicator (QLI)
10.3. First Line Supervisor (FLS) reviews shall be conducted in accordance with
the QA FLS Review instruction. This review should focus on compliance to
NASA requirements. Supervisors should support NASA Space Flight Awareness
(SFA) Program - Supervisors should nominate FS in accordance with the award
criteria.
10.4. CMOs with active NASA workload, shall include NASA as an element of the
CMO Management Review program. Internal Control Reviews shall be performed
periodically with the scope and frequency adjusted when systemic issues are
identified. The results from JAPC, NAMT and NAT audits and FLS reviews should
be factored into the management review risk assessment.
11. Close LoD - When all work has been completed the LoD shall be closed in
ECARS by the assigned FS.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST
       REVIEWER:                         DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                      TEAM:

                                                                                                                        Applies to
                                                                                                                           this
Date   Requirement                                                                                                      Evaluation?
       Overhaul, Modification, and Repair                                                                                   X
       1. Review Contract – For contracts for the overhaul, modification, and repair of aircraft, wheeled and tracked
       vehicles (Retrofit and Reset), other weapon systems and their repairable components assigned functional
       personnel shall, in addition to Contract Receipt and Review and Contract Technical Review, as applicable to
       the -contract, identify and document requirements for:
             Classified equipment storage, safeguards, and reporting requirements
           - Specific receiving or induction inspection requirements
           - Over and Above Work Request (OAWR) requirements
           - Authorization and / or procedures for cannibalization or rob-back actions
           - Bench and operational testing requirements
           - Provisions relating to acquisition of Contractor-Acquired Property (CAP), reporting and disposal of
         Government property (52.245-1)
          - Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Government Furnished Material(GFM) vs. contractor
         purchasing requirements (CAP)
          - GFE/GFM disposal requirements e.g. demilitarization requirements
          - Use of Commercial Asset Visibility (CAV)
          - Contractor reporting requirements (e.g., number of repairable items received and shipped, condition of
         articles at time of teardown, etc.)
          - Scope of work included in the basic price of the contract versus O&A work, including items or services
         that are fixed-price vs. labor hour(cost)-priced
          - Technical Orders and Technical Manuals
          - FAA standards for commercial derivative aircraft
          - Unplanned armaments / ordnance
          - Requisitioning parts and supplies
          - Contract safety requirements
          - Hazardous material requirements

        2. Conduct / Participate in Post Award Orientation Conference (PAOC) – In addition to the requirements
        addressed in Contract Receipt and Review and the QA Post Award Orientation Conference, PAOCs for
        Overhaul and Repair contracts should address all the applicable items referenced in paragraph 1.
3. When DCMA has been delegated responsibility to authorize Over and Above Work Requests (OAWR) as
described in DFARS PGI 217.77 and DFARS 252.217-7028, the CMO is responsible for ensuring the
contractor provides fair and reasonable prices, makes timely deliveries, and produces conforming products
and services. The OAWR process is the responsibility of the ACO. Quality Assurance, Production and
Engineering have support roles in OAWR processing. In accordance with DFARS 252.217-7028 the ACO
shall establish documented procedures with the supplier for the review, authorization, and definitization of
OAWRs. These procedures should be mutually established with the supplier. When mutual agreement
cannot be reached the ACO has the unilateral right to direct the OAWR procedures to be followed. These
procedures should address:

  - The place or places where the OAWR are to be submitted
  - Government reviews, verifications, and authorizations that are necessary before the contractor may
begin the work to include how OAWRs are processed during off shifts and holidays
  - Additional documentation required to support the OAWR
  - Identifying codes or symbols indicating disposition / decision of OAWRs
  - Submission and authorization procedures for CAP requests
  - Contractor responsibilities for reporting production progress
  - Identifying work requests that affect safety of flight (SOF) characteristics / features or critical safety item
(CSI) critical characteristics
   - Cannibalization or rob-back
  - Identifying completed inspections that require re-inspection. (Break of inspection, BOI).
  - OAWR rejection / disapproval process


3.2. Assigned QA personnel shall promptly review OAWRs and document results in accordance with locally
developed procedures referenced in paragraph 4. QA responsibilities typically include:

  - Verifying that the work requested is actually O&A (i.e., is not covered by one of the line items for the
basic work under the contract or a defect caused by the supplier)
  - Determining whether the work requested is or is not pre-priced by the contract
  - Verifying that the work to be performed is adequately described, and includes appropriate disposition
instructions (e.g., repair, manufacture or acquire replacement, scrap, disassembly or part removal to
facilitate accomplishment of the OAWR)
  - Verifying that the inspection and acceptance criteria are adequately defined (including, as applicable,
references to Technical Order and Technical Manual requirements, breaks of inspection, etc.)
  - Verifying authorized OAWRs have been satisfactorily completed to include all necessary inspections and
tests have been accomplished
    - Sampling of completed OAWRs in accordance with a statistically valid sampling plan may be employed
    - Verification of completed OAWRs associated with Critical Safety Item (CSI) critical characteristics or
 Safety of Flight (SOF) characteristics shall be in accordance with CSI and SOF policies.
 3.2.1. When items are returned through the Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) process they should
 be reviewed by QA personnel to ensure the supplier is not circumventing their responsibility for supplier
 caused defects through the OAWR process.

4. Develop a Risk Based Surveillance Plan – In addition to the Risk Assessment and QA Surveillance Plan
instruction requirements, the surveillance plan shall address the following if applicable to the contract.

 4.1. The supplier has a receiving / induction inspection process for each repairable asset. This process
should be adequate to capture the “as received” condition of the repairable asset. This is essential to
accurately determine the asset is in the appropriate condition to be overhauled, repaired or modified. The “as
received” condition also serves as the baseline for determining supplier responsible defects versus military
user caused defects that may be beyond the scope of the contract.

 4.1.1. Where there is a possibility of the military services sending repairable assets to the overhaul/repair
supplier without having first removed all classified equipment, the receiving/induction process should be able
to adequately safeguard and report any such instances. The plan shall include a requirement to confirm that
all steps have been taken by the supplier when classified equipment is detected.

4.1.2. On component or item level repairs the plan should address the evaluation of “Beyond Economical
Repair” (BER) dispositions. This may be a multifunctional effort involving other technical specialists.
4.2. The supplier has an adequate process for authorizing and controlling retesting and breaks of inspection
resulting from cannibalization and rob-back actions.
4.3. Verification of appropriate disposal of GFE/GFM to include any demilitarization requirements when
requested in writing by the Property Administrator/Plant Clearance Officer.
 4.4. The supplier has an adequate process for maintaining and controlling repair manuals and military
service technical orders (TOs).
4.5. Assure that CSI repairables are overhauled / repaired in accordance with Service Engineering Support
Activity (ESA) approved procedures. All requests for ESA support and approval shall be forwarded through
the ACO and PCO.
 5.1. Only conforming CSIs purchased from sources approved by the Service Engineering Support Activity
(ESA) shall be used. All permanent or temporary modification requests for CSIs shall be forwarded to the
cognizant Service ESA for review and approval. Modification of CSIs during installation or repair in order to
make them fit or function is prohibited unless approved by the Service ESA. When QA personnel anticipate
delegating to a Host Nation the GCQA functions for aviation CSIs maintained, repaired, or overhauled at
supplier’s facilities outside the US, they should obtain concurrence from the affected ESA. To prevent their re-
entry into the supply system, CSIs shall be mutilated prior to disposal.

 5.2. When commercial derivative aircraft are overhauled, modified, or repaired on FAR Part 15 type contracts
with or without FAA specific requirements, DCMA surveillance shall be commensurate with the stated
contract requirements. As referenced in DFARS 246.408-71, FAA evaluations, to include flight worthiness
certificates are not substitutes for normal DCMA surveillance. The results of FAA evaluations should be used
in DCMA Data Collection and Analysis for Risk Assessments and determining supplier performance.

6. Execute Planned Surveillance - QA personnel shall execute planned surveillance and document results as
prescribed in Process Review, Product Examination, and Quality System Audit policies.
5. Rejection of Delegation - Where receiving CMO resources are limited in functional areas, limited
acceptance of the delegation should be discussed and negotiated with the sender. Only the receiving CMO
Commander or Center Director or their designee ca

5.1. The following additional steps shall be taken when a delegation is rejected for resource related issues:

  - CMO Commander or Director or designee elevates to Division Director or their designee inability to
support delegation request
  - Divisi
 5.1.1. If required, inform Customer of inability of DCMA to support workload.
5.2. When a rejection occurs for reasons other than resource related, e.g., the factors referenced in paragraph
1.1, the applicable issue shall be elevated to the Division Director or designee to include cross Divisional
coordination, if applicable. The

6. Execute Planned Surveillance - QA personnel shall execute planned surveillance and document results as
prescribed in Process Review, Product Examination, and Quality System Audit policies.

7. Issue Corrective Action Requests (CARs) - CARs shall be issued when contractual nonconformities are
discovered as prescribed in the Corrective Action Process. Repetitive submittals of OAWRs that are within
the scope of contractual repairs are a basis for a Level II or higher CAR.
8. Accept and release product - Contract deliverables shall be accepted and released as prescribed in the
Product Acceptance and Release Process.
9. Analyze Data - QA personnel shall plan and perform data analysis as prescribed in Data Collection and
Analysis and shall be the basis for surveillance plan adjustment and product acceptance.
                                            3
            ASSESSMENT                      FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION




DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS       DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION
                        4




                           Total
Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
Scheduled   Completed   Observations   Total OBS   % Effective
          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                       DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                    TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Post Award Orientation Conference


       1. If the ACO and/or PCO decide that a full PAOC will be conducted,
       the QA Representative cognizant of the supplier shall participate. The
       quality assurance portion of the conference shall be used to
       discuss the quality and technical requirements specified in the
       contract, the responsibilities of the government QA personnel in
       assuring that the requirements are met, and the supplier’s plans
       and procedures for satisfying the contract quality requirements.
       2. Determine the need for a QA Post Award Orientation Conference
       - A QA PAOC shall be performed when any of the following factors
       apply:
          Negative or marginal Preaward survey findings and
          recommendations

          Critical nature and technical complexity of supplies or services
          is outside of the supplier’s demonstrated competency
          Adverse supplier performance history

          Adverse quality history with the item or service being provided
          A new supplier
          Contract contains First Article Requirements

          Contract contains either the Ground and Flight Risk Clause
          (DFARS 252.228-7001) or the Aircraft Flight Risk Clause (DFARS
          252.228-7002), or otherwise involves aircraft operations
       2.1. The following factors may also be considered in determining the
       need for a QA PAOC:
          An item or service of such a hazardous nature that special
          precautionary measures are indicated in the contract
          Ammunition contracts

          Extent of subcontracting as related to contractual QA requirements
   Special provisions in the contract require mutual Government/supplier
   understanding. Examples of these are in-process inspection and test
   verification procedures, Government approval of process procedures,
   RFID, and control of Government-furnished materials
   Results of previous postaward conferences
   QA personnel determine that other conditions exist which require
   postaward orientation conferences
3. Planning- Prior to the PAOC, QA personnel should thoroughly review
the contract, including the technical data package (TDP), as well as any
other available records, including preaward surveys (PAS) and past
performance information (PPI) for applicability to the current contract
requirements.
3.1 The following topics shall be considered for discussion as they
pertain to the contract:
   Supplier’s written Quality Management System
   All documented commitments made by the supplier at the time
   of the preaward survey, if one was performed
   Contract technical data package requirements, including
   drawings, specifications, and standards
   Inspection and test requirements of the contract, including test
   equipment, calibration, and reference standards
   Packaging, packing, marking, and shipping requirements
   Control of subcontractors for purchased supplies
   Maintenance of inspection and test records
   Supplier’s obligation to provide facilities and inspection
   equipment for government QA personnel to perform surveillance
   activities
   Any specific requirements for personnel certification, such as
   nondestructive testing requirements
   Any ambiguous quality or technical requirements

   Special process controls for material treatments that cannot be
   verified through subsequent inspections or tests
3.2 When a QA postaward is to be conducted, QA personnel shall
be responsible for:
   Arranging and conducting the conference
   Scheduling the conference to include, when appropriate, inviting
   other CMO technical specialists, as well as technical
   representatives from the buying activity
   Preparing the agenda
   Conducting a meeting of all involved Government personnel
   prior to the meeting with the supplier to ensure that all
   participants are in agreement on the agenda items and
   interpretation of the quality requirements
4. Conduct the PAOC- QA personnel should ensure that discussions
are comprehensive enough to ensure that nothing in the quality area is
left open to assumption or misinterpretation. QA personnel shall make
it clear to the supplier that they do not have authority to bind the
Government and shall not take action that in any way alters the
terms and conditions of the contract.
4.1 Conducting a QA PAOC Conference- The QA representative
shall act as the chairperson for the conference and either take
meeting minutes or designate someone from the Government team to
do so.

5. Documenting PAOC - PAOC discussions, list of attendees,
agreements, decisions, action items, and any other pertinent
information shall be documented and report distributed.
Distribution shall include: all attendees, the Contracting Officer
(ACO and PCO), the official contract file, and the supplier. DD Form
1484, Post-Award Conference Record, may be used to document
the PAOC results. The chairperson shall provide copies of the
report to the buying activity, regardless of their participation.

 5.1 Action items resulting from the PAOC shall clearly specify the
 individual responsible for the action, as well as a target date for
 completion. QA personnel shall monitor all action items related to
 quality, verify completion of action items and notify parties on original
 distribution when all action items have been completed.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
                                                                          0
Total OBS   % Effective
   0
N/A
           1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                            DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                         TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Process Review
       1. Determine Which Processes to be Reviewed - Identify processes in accordance
       with GCQA Surveillance Planning.
       2. Determine the Scope of Each Process to be Reviewed - The scope of each review
       shall be determined based on the applicable risk impact. If the risk impact is rated
       as high, then all process elements shall be reviewed. If the risk impact is rated
       moderate or low, the review may cover all elements or selected portions. Process
       Review Planning documentation shall identify the steps to be reviewed. Items
       with CSI requirements have an associated list of important manufacturing
       processes which may be used as a planning tool in performing Process Review
       for any complex item.
       3. Determine the Appropriate Review Method for Each Process - A process may be
       reviewed as a single event or incrementally. Planning for an incremental Process
       Review shall include identification of all the process elements planned for each
       increment. Subsequent reviews are scheduled over a specified time period until all the
       planned elements have been reviewed.

       4. Conduct the Process Review for Each Process - QA Personnel shall review
       each selected process (see Para.1) to determine the adequacy in consistently
       producing a quality product. Process Review shall begin with a review of the
       supplier’s documented procedures for each process selected. Assure that the
       procedures identify the important aspects in the right sequence, sufficient
       controls are in place, and any special skills are addressed. The procedures shall
       be adequate to meet all contractual requirements as noted in the contract (e.g.,
       ISO 9000-2008, applicable drawings, the Statement of Work, specification
       requirements, or other related requirements). The supplier's procedures should
       address the five key elements of a process that includes the (4M+E) necessary to
       produce the product.
          Methods
          Manpower
          Material
          Machinery
          Environment
        4.1 For non-complex, critical items (as identified by contract e.g. critical application
        item), this may involve only one or two of the most critical processes that determine
        the quality of the product. For more complex manufacturing facilities or facilities
        producing products that include a Critical Characteristic or that may involve Safety of
        Flight, Navy Special Emphasis, NASA, Life Support, etc., QA Personnel are
        encouraged to use an analytical tool such as a flowchart to reveal how the supplier
        plans to control each of the five key process elements throughout the manufacturing
        process.
 4.2 The sample checklist in the Tools section below provide suggested process
 elements the QA Personnel should take into account in performance of Process
 Review.
 4.3 During review of process inputs and controls, QA Personnel shall:
   Assess inputs against the technical requirements
   Witness and evaluate process steps/activities and controls in use
   Perform a Product Examination to ascertain if the process results meet the
   specified output requirements

5. Document Results: All inputs and output data reflecting each process element
(e.g., 4M+E) shall be documented. QA Personnel shall accurately record the
results of the Process Review when completed and in a suitable manner which
will allow for use during data analysis (See Data Collection & Analysis process).
 Data points (Supplier and Government) identified during Process Reviews may be used
to monitor ongoing process performance. As a minimum, the records shall contain:
   Methods
   Date of review
   Person accomplishing review
   Supplier name
   Location of the review
   The process reviewed

   Supplier Procedure/Documentation references, revision number and date
   The items being processed at the time of the review by nomenclature, part
   number, serial number, batch number, etc.
   Elements of the process reviewed (e.g., 4M+E)
   Steps of the process reviewed
    Non-conformances found
6. Notification of results: The results of the Process Review should be discussed
with the supplier (and customer, if applicable) to include possible opportunities for
improvement for processes exhibiting variations. QA Personnel shall initiate
immediate corrective action (See Corrective Action Process) when the results
indicate a contractual nonconformity.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
           1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                             DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                          TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Product Examination
       1. Plan Product Examination - In accordance with the GCQA Surveillance Planning
       instruction, QA personnel shall identify the test/inspection characteristics to be
       examined and the technique to be used.
         1.1. The verification and test performed by the Government serves as the initial
         evaluation of the supplier’s conformance or nonconformity to technical requirements.  
         The concepts of the Product Examination procedures contained herein are based on
         the following premises:
               The supplier is responsible for controlling product quality and for offering to the
               Government for acceptance only those supplies and services that conform to
               contractual requirements and, when required, for maintaining and furnishing
               objective evidence of this conformance.

              The Government is responsible for determining that contractual requirements
              have been complied with prior to acceptance of the supplies or services.
              Sound management of QA resources requires that manpower effort be applied
              where the interests of the Government can best be served. These best interests
              can be served only by identifying and concentrating on those areas where the
              supplier is experiencing or exhibiting difficulty in controlling product
              characteristics.

        1.2. Product Examination is a method to determine one or more physical
        characteristics of the product. Product Examination consists of four techniques.
        Normally, Government verification will be performed subsequent to and independent
        of the supplier's verification. However, when the nature of verification or test will be
        detrimental to the item being inspected (i.e., destructive test), an extended period of
        time is required to conduct the test, or other factors exist which may unnecessarily
        contribute to high testing costs, the Government may concurrently witness the
        verification being performed by the supplier. Product Examination may be concurrent
        with or after the supplier's inspection and/or test. When concurrent Product
        Examination is used, QA personnel shall observe whether the supplier
        accurately records the verification results. A defect properly recorded by the
        supplier will not be cause for corrective action by QA personnel. QA personnel
        shall make their conformance determination after the supplier has made their
        accept/reject determination.

              Inspection: Conformity evaluation by observation and judgment accompanied
              as appropriate by measurement or gauging. QA personnel perform product
              examination independently using supplier supplied inspection equipment,
              validating the results of the supplier’s previous inspection.  QA personnel record 
              results of the examination. Sampling of characteristics may be used (see
              Sampling Process) if not prohibited by the customer (QALI, LOD, etc.). A zero
              based sampling plan is provided as a reference.
      Testing: QA personnel determine compliance of one or more characteristics or
      performance criteria according to an established procedure. QA personnel
      perform the test and records results of his examination.

       Witness: QA personnel observe the supplier performing an inspection or test.
       QA personnel closely witness the supplier’s measurement and recording of the 
       results. QA personnel should identify the test/inspection characteristics to be
       witnessed. This may involve the entire duration or selected portions of the test.
       QA personnel should read the measuring or test equipment to confirm the results
       taken and conditions observed, independent of the supplier, to determine
       whether the item meets requirements.
       Verification: QA personnel confirm, through the provision of objective evidence,
       that specified requirements have been fulfilled by the supplier’s surveillance.  A 
       level of confidence in the objective evidence shall be established prior to utilizing
       verification as a method of surveillance
 1.3. QA personnel shall determine the physical location where the government
 verification will be performed. Normally, the government verification will be
 performed at the same location where the supplier controls the characteristic. This is
 where the measuring or test equipment and supplier records are normally available.
 In addition, this is the place where tighter supplier control/corrective action must be
 applied if discrepancies are found.

  1.4. Notification to Supplier (to include any Mandatory Hold Points) - When production
  is periodic or when directed by the customer to perform mandatory examination, QA
  personnel shall notify supplier in writing of any required hold points in
  production/manufacturing process.
2. Perform Product Examination (Inspect/Witness/Test/Verify)- QA personnel
shall perform Product Examination of the planned characteristics using the
planned techniques.
  2.1 The following actions shall be taken and recorded as separate observations
  as part of any initial Product Examination, and may be a part of continuing
  product examination:
    Review the supplier's work/verification instructions/ drawings pertaining to
    the level of assembly to determine availability, adequacy of the instructions
    and correct drawing revision level.
    Evaluate the adequacy of the verification equipment used by the supplier to
    control the applicable characteristic(s). Verify currency of calibration and that
    the capability and stated accuracy of the verification equipment is adequate to
    determine the conformance/nonconformity of the characteristic being
    inspected.

   Evaluate the documentation used to record the results of supplier's
   verification. This review will determine the adequacy of supplier records.

3. Document Results: (verification records, CAR, etc.) QA personnel shall
accurately record the results of his/her examinations and maintain this data in a
manner suitable for data collection and analysis. (See Data Collection & Analysis
process). Data points developed during Product Examination shall be monitored
for trends to assure processes are in control and consistently producing
conforming product. Records shall reflect when concurrent Product Examination
was conducted. The records shall be maintained in accordance with the Records
Management Instruction. The minimum data elements to be recorded shall
include ( See Product Examination Sheet as an example):
   Supplier name
   Contract number (where applicable)
   Specify technique used during the Product Examination and concurrent (if
   applicable)
      Inspection
      Test
      Witness
      Verify
   Operation
   Part number/Serial number where applicable
   Person conducting examination
   Date of the examination
   Assembly/component/area identification
   Total number of items examined
   Nature of the observations (Characteristic)
   Characteristic source document identification (rev #, date)
   Number of observations
   Nonconformities found
   Corrective actions issued

4. Notification of results: The results of the Product Examination should be
discussed with the supplier. The QA personnel shall initiate immediate corrective
action (see Corrective Action Process) when the results indicate that any of the
product characteristics are not in conformance with contract requirements.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
Date
   1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST
REVIEWER:                          DATE:
TECH SPEC:                       TEAM:




Requirement
Corrective Action
1. Assure Surveillance Events Were Planned and Accomplished - QA personnel shall accept supplies/services
offered by the supplier when there is a basis of confidence that the supplies/services conform to contract
requirements. QA personnel shall accept supplies associated with subcontract activities when authorized in
the prime contract. QA personnel shall assure that:
      Government Contract Quality Assurance (GCQA) surveillance events, that serve as a basis for this
      When GCQA surveillance plans accordance with the established GCQA surveillance plan
confidence, have been accomplished inidentify Product Examination (packaging and marking, etc.)
associated with product release and acceptance is based on sampling, a zero-based sampling plan shall
be used, unless otherwise specified by contract
       Verify that supplier identified Product Realization steps have been accomplished (e.g., production
planning and inspection records) Commercial Contracts - Acceptance for products procured through
2. Accept Products Procured on
commercial contracts; reflected in an associated contract clause FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and
Conditions-Commercial Items; is limited to inspection and test when the product is tendered for
acceptance in a manner consistent with commercial practices. The intent is that the Government does
not perform surveillance prior to the time the supplier tenders commercial items for Government
acceptance. Contracts may be tailored to allow for in-process surveillance through a contract addendum.
3. Verify Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) Receiving Report (RR) - When it is determined the supplies conform
with contractual technical requirements, QA personnel shall verify the WAWF-RR is completed in accordance
with the contract requirements. If multiple WAWF-RR are presented at one time, sampling may be used to
verify the WAWF-RR is correct. Sampling, if used, shall be accomplished using a zero-based Acceptable Quality
Level (AQL) commensurate with the risk associated with the suppliers WAWF-RR development process.
 Product Examination records shall reflect which WAWF-RR, by shipment number, were sampled. The same
shall When the supplies under consideration are software products, a determination shall
3.1. apply when processing a DD Form 250 Material Inspection and Receiving Report (MIRR).be made
whether the software being procured is a stand-alone contract line item or embedded in the end item or
system. If acceptance authority is granted to DCMA, personnel who are Software Professional
Development Program (SPDP) Certified shall accept the software in accordance with the Software
Acquisition Management instruction. If the software is embedded in the end item or system, inspection
and/or acceptance of the software element of the system shall be coordinated with the SPDP Certified
QAAuthorize Shipment of Supplies - the end item or system. defined by the contract, transfers title of
4. personnel prior to acceptance of Product acceptance, as
products and supplies to the Government, unless the contract specifically provides for earlier passage of
title. QA personnel should determine the method of authorizing product shipment and product
acceptance e.g. determine if Certificate of Conformance (CoC) or Alternative Release Procedures (ARP)
should be used based on the contractual terms and conditions and supplier performance. When required
by the customer, QA Stamping shall be accomplished as defined by the customer.
4.1. Where appropriate, QA personnel are authorized to release product/deliverables using CoC or
ARP. CoC and ARP are applied as described in the instructions below (see paragraphs 4.2 & 4.3).
These alternative procedures should not be authorized on any contracts involving shipments for NASA,
Level 1/Subsafe, and/or Navy Special Emphasis Program (NSEP), unless specifically authorized in
writing by the customer.
4.2. Certificate of Conformance (CoC) - When authorized via inclusion of FAR Clause 52.246-15, the Contract
Administration Office may accept supplies via a Certificate of Conformance. In accordance with DFARS
246.504, before authorizing a certificate of conformance for aviation or ship critical safety items, obtain the
concurrence of the head of the design control activity. When used, CoC shall be authorized in writing on a
contract-by-contract basis. Acceptance via CoC is preferred, unless there is insufficient data to assess supplier
performance history, the customer has imposed mandatory surveillance tasks or there is documented evidence
       Acceptance on the basis of a supplier's certificate of conformance is in the Government's Officer
of significant adverse supplier performance. When this clause is included in contracts the Contracting interest;
and
       Small losses would be incurred in the eventperformance, it is likely that the supplies or services
       Because of the supplier's reputation or past of a defect; or
furnished will be acceptable and any defective work would be replaced, corrected, or repaired without
contest.
4.2.1. CoC is authorized in lieu of source inspection. Government acceptance is based solely on the
CoC with no further "final inspection" or "acceptance inspection" such as inspections of kind, count, and
condition of the deliverable. Consider the following when determining the use of CoC:
       CoC clause is contained in the contract
       CoC is authorized in writing by the Contract Management Office (CMO)
       CoC is applicable for both products and services
       CoC is available/applicable to prime suppliers; invoking the CoC on the prime contract results in
no Government surveillance at sub-tier suppliers supporting the prime contract
                If a delegation is warranted to mitigate risks identified at a subcontract level, CoC is not
appropriate to be authorized.
4.2.2. It is appropriate for QA personnel to invoke CoC when conditions dictate its use. When contracts
contain DFARS 252.246-7000, "Material Inspection and Receiving Report", and the CoC methodology is
applied, assure that the DD Form 250 is completed in accordance with DFARS Appendix F, Part 3, F-
4.2.3. WAWF shipments via CoC only require that the supplier has selected the appropriate radial
indicator on the WAWF-RR screen.
  4.3. Alternative Release Procedure (ARP) - When the conditions described in DFARS 246.471(b) are present
QA personnel may release products through Alternative Release Procedure (ARP). The following should be
considered when ARP is used:
        ARP does not alleviate US Government source inspection requirements and should not be used in
lieu of GCQA surveillance activities
        ARP requires no contract clause
        The Contract Management Office (CMO) invokes ARP in writing
        ARP is applicable for products but not services
        ARP is available/applicable to both prime suppliers and sub-tier suppliers
  4.3.1. When warranted, it is appropriate for QA personnel to invoke ARP at their discretion. ARP shall
be authorized in writing by QA personnel. Authorization may be at the facility, program, product line, or
contract level. When contracts contain DFARS 252.246-7000, "Material Inspection and Receiving Report", and
the ARP methodology is applied, assure that the DD Form 250 is completed in accordance with DFARS
4.3.2. WAWF shipments via ARP only require that the supplier has selected the appropriate radial
indicator on the WAWF-RR screen.
4.4. The primary difference in the requirements for ARP and CoC is the execution of GCQA
surveillance. ARP requires continuing The preferred method of submitting contractual suppliesCoC, on the
5. Process Acceptance Documents - surveillance in accordance to the GCQA Surveillance Plan. for
acceptance is supplier submission through WAWF. However, there may be circumstances when a
supplier submits a DD Form 250. The WAWF website may be accessed at https://wawf.eb.mil. Per
DFARS 232.7003, WAWF-RR-Receipt and Acceptance (WAWF-RA) is an accepted electronic form. QA personnel
may review the information at the DoD's Web-Based Invoicing Tool website for further information and
guidance.
  5.1. When contracts contain DFARS 252.246-7000, "Material Inspection and Receiving Report", QA
5.2. QA should execute use the data associated with WAWF-RR-Receipt and Acceptance/DD
personnelpersonnel shouldand process the DD Form 250 in accordance with DFARS Appendix F.Form
250 rejections in their data analysis as the basis to determine the risk referenced in paragraph 3. Data
should be analyzed to identify process drivers, identify problems and solutions, and track progress, in
terms of rejection rates.
6. Process Corrected DD Form DD250 - Corrected DD Form 250s shall be processed in accordance
with the correction instructions contained in paragraph F-305 of DFARS Appendix F. When WAWF
7. Process Replacement DD Form 250 - When signing a DD Form 250 replacing WAWF.
Version 4.2ais deployed, corrected WAWF-RR's shall be processed electronically inan acceptance
document lost or mis-distributed by the vendor, the date of acceptance on the replacement copy should
be the actual date of acceptance from the original DD Form 250. This applies to replacements done in
hard copy or in Wide Area Workflow.
                          ASSESSMENT



Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
     X
3                                                                    4
FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION



                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
                                                                          0
Total OBS   % Effective
   0




             #DIV/0!
           1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST
       REVIEWER:                           DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                        TEAM:

                                                                                                                              Applies to
                                                                                                                                 this
Date   Requirement                                                                                                            Evaluation?
       QA Delegation                                                                                                              X
       1. Analyze supplier work requirements and determine need to delegate - There are instances where CMOs
       may determine DCMA needs to delegate specific commitments, tasks, or activities to ensure subcontractor
       performance or to validate prime supplier controls. DCMA personnel shall monitor supplier activities
       associated with their specific functions and initiate delegations to receiving CMOs at the subcontract and
       further sub-tier levels as appropriate to accomplish necessary contract oversight or the performance of a
       specific task, function or performance indicator. Contract management at the subcontract level is intended to
       assure that the Government's best interests are served, not the prime suppliers' interests. DCMA personnel
       shall assure that delegated work is essential to contract performance and that the surveillance or tasks may
       only be adequately accomplished through direct DCMA involvement at the subcontract level. Delegations
       shall be issued when surveillance is required at another CMO or when the activities are required at a different
       supplier within the same CMO.
         1.1. Sender shall analyze work requirement(s) and determine the need for a delegation.Factors affecting the
         need for issuing delegations are addressed in FAR 46.405 to include:
           - The item is to be shipped from the subcontractor's facility to the using activity and inspection at source
         is required
           - The contract specifies that certain quality assurance functions, which can only be performed at the
         subcontractor's facility, are to be performed by the government
           - It is otherwise required by the contract or determined to be in the government's best interest such as
         high consequence risk or the surveillance plan identifies risks associated with:
                - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) work. All NASA sub-tier delegations are made
         in ECARS
                - Navy Special Emphasis Program work
                - Mission critical items (MCI), Critical Safety Items (CSI) and Safety of Flight (SOF) items (e.g. critical
         characteristics or processes that can not be appropriately verified upon receipt at the prime supplier’s
         facility.)
                - Negative subcontractor performance history e.g. Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR)
         investigations attributable to the subcontractor, high level of failures at the prime supplier caused by
         subcontracted items, etc.
                - Surveillance activity for a process which has high or moderate risk impact or consequence of failure
1.1.2. Factors that may not require delegations:

 - Non-critical items
 - Non-complex items
 - Low risk supplier
 - Features, characteristics, and processes with minimal influence/impact on contract performance
 - Moderate and low risk impact or consequence of failure with positive subcontractor performance history

2. Sender shall open lines of communication with receiving CMO(s) prior to delegating to ensure
requirements are understood and will maintain communication throughout the life of the delegation.

2.1. Where a place of performance is identified in a contract, the sending CMO shall notify the CMO
cognizant of the subcontractor of the contract, including the contract number and CAGE code or provide a
copy of the contract when not available through Electronic Data Access (EDA) . The CMO cognizant of the
subcontractor shall obtain the contract through EDA. Personnel at both locations shall communicate to
assure that each party clearly understands the relationship between the prime supplier and the
subcontractor and that all appropriate requirements and responsibilities are communicated. If there is a
need for more specific instruction to be flowed down to receiving CMOs at these locations, or where
functions beyond QA are necessary at the place of performance, DCMA sending CMOs shall issue
delegations to receiving CMOs to ensure that activities and mandatory requirements are complied with and
understood.

Note: Place of Performance and Direct Shipments are not synonymous terms or situations. Place of
Performance contracts may identify line items that are to be shipped directly to the Government. However,
irrespective of the type of contract, direct shipments to the Government from a supplier / subcontractor are
not authorized unless specifically identified in the prime contract.


2.2. Communication should include any resource estimates that are known prior to the issuance of the
delegation and attempts to resolve any gaps identified.

 2.3.1. Corporation Inter/Intra-Divisional Work Transfer - Where contract performance is shared between
different divisions within the same major corporate entity, the sending CMO cognizant of the division that is
identified in the contract shall delegate to the receiving CMO cognizant of the division involved with
performance. Typically, the company will use an inter-divisional work order to document this transfer of
responsibility between divisions. DCMA Offices at corporate locations should be aware of this workload
and engage with the supplier to gain insight into those work requirements.
 2.3.2. Blanket delegations may be issued where issuance of individual delegations would be an
 administrative burden and for a particular group of purchase orders for:

   - Surveillance of repetitive processes or tasks in a facility
   - Purchases of the same or similar items
   - Specific efforts in a particular facility

       2.3.2.1. Blanket delegations shall be reissued at least annually to document that they are still
 appropriate.

 2.3.3. Host Nation delegations are delegations issued to, or received from a foreign Government for the
exchange of contract management services and are issued by the cognizant DCMAI CMO. DCMA CONUS to
DCMA OCONUS delegations shall be processed in accordance with this policy; however, when sending
delegations to or receiving delegations from a foreign Government the International Agreement / International
Memoranda of Agreements / Host Nation Contract Management Services Instruction or the International and
Federal Business Reimbursable and Non-Reimbursable Support Instruction shall take precedence as
applicable. Note: When receiving a delegation from a foreign Government, DCMA is the Host Nation.
2.3.4. Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) support investigation requests shall be delegated to the sub-
tier location via the Product Deficiency Report and Evaluation Program (PDREP).

2.3.5 If export-control requirements are imposed on the prime contract and the prime supplier intends to sub-
contract to a foreign supplier, the prime CMO shall contact the prime supplier to determine if, during the
performance of the sub-contract, the sub-supplier will generate or require access to export-controlled articles
or technical data. If the sub-supplier will generate or will require access to export-controlled articles or
technical data, DCMA personnel at the prime shall ensure that subcontracts / purchase orders, and
delegations to the CAS component cognizant of the subcontractor identify ITAR / EAR restrictions, the
appropriate DFARS clause, and the number and expiration date of the applicable export license. Delegating
CMOs should send a copy of the export license to the sub-tier CMO if available. See the Export Control
Instructions for additional requirements prior to issuing delegations.
 2.4. Communication shall be documented. Any mode of communication is acceptable.

 3. Prepare and Send Delegation - The delegation shall be sent after initial communications have been
completed whether or not all issues have been resolved.

  3.1. Delegations shall include appropriate documents, e.g., support contracts, purchase orders, source of
Customer Directed Activity (MOA, QALI if applicable), specific regulatory requirements, or risk statements.

 3.1.1. The prime supplier shall be requested to incorporate government access rights into the applicable
subcontract to ensure timely government access to the subcontractor facility. Assure the access wording is
consistent with the Government rights expressed in the prime contract, reference FAR 52.246-2 through 8.
 3.2. Delegations shall include specific tasks which shall be performed, e.g. critical characteristics for CSI,
SOF characteristics, post-award financial analysis, and Property Administration. These tasks shall be the
result of the communication between the sender and receiver.

3.3. Delegations for Quality Assurance support shall include or reference the location in the appropriate
documents as applicable:
  - Appropriate quality / inspection system requirements
  - Appropriate and accurate technical requirements or reference thereto
  - Identification of critical safety items, critical product characteristics, and critical processes
  - System safety risks that may result in catastrophic failure (i.e. Failure Modes and Effect Criticality Analysis
(FMECA) category 1)
  - Required personnel, system, process, or material certifications
  - Subcontractor/supplier authority relative to processing waivers and deviations
  - Requirements relative to subcontractor generated plans, i.e. quality plans, risk management plans, frozen
manufacturing planning, configuration management plans, etc.
  - Requirements relative to frozen/locked configurations, design reviews, configuration management
requirements and audits, first article inspection and/or specific testing requirements; and Instructions related
to product release from the subcontractor's facility
  - When applicable, ITAR restrictions, appropriate ITAR DFARS clause, and the number and expiration date,
of the applicable export license
3.4. The QA/PA Delegation eTool shall be used to delegate contract administration functions. The exceptions
are those which utilize the ECARS system, e.g., International and NASA delegations.


4. Acknowledge the delegation - The receiver shall analyze delegated work requirement(s) and assign a lead
for a multi-functional delegation. Once requirements are determined at the functional level, the receiving
CMO shall Accept, Accept with Limitations, or Reject Delegation. Decisions shall be made within 10 work
days. Each CMO should identify the level within the organization to accept or reject delegations. The
Commander, Director, or designee shall be informed of the rationale for limited acceptance or rejection. The
reference to designee for limited acceptance or rejection of delegations is operationally defined as the
individual formally identified in writing by the Commander/Director to act with the full authority of the
Commander/Director.

5. Rejection of Delegation - Where receiving CMO resources are limited in functional areas, limited
acceptance of the delegation should be discussed and negotiated with the sender. Only the receiving CMO
Commander or Center Director or their designee can reject a delegation. CMOs should assess workload
across their organization and prioritize new delegations against existing workload. If a mutual agreement is
reached on a limited delegation, further escalation is not required. Division Directors or their designee’s shall
be informed of any delegation which is rejected.
5.1. The following additional steps shall be taken when a delegation is rejected for resource related issues:

  - CMO Commander or Director or designee elevates to Division Director or their designee inability to
support delegation request
  - Division determines if the required resources and skills are available within the Division
  - Division determines if FTE can be reallocated, temporarily or permanently, to CMO requested to perform
delegation.
  - Division determines if assistance is available from Division assets
  - Cross Divisional coordination
       - If Division can not support delegation, elevate to Agency Headquarters level to determine if assets are
available from other Divisions or HQ assets
       - If Divisions disagree and can not resolve support for the delegation issues will be elevated to Agency
Headquarters
 5.1.1. If required, inform Customer of inability of DCMA to support workload.
5.2. When a rejection occurs for reasons other than resource related, e.g., the factors referenced in paragraph
1.1, the applicable issue shall be elevated to the Division Director or designee to include cross Divisional
coordination, if applicable. The Division shall elevate to Agency Headquarters if the issue cannot be resolved
at the Divisional level.

6. Re-delegate - The receiving CMO can re-delegate throughout the supply chain, as required. The same
process as described in paragraphs 1- 5 shall be followed with the initial delegating CMO.

7. Execute the delegation - The receiver shall perform the delegated work requirement(s) in accordance with
applicable agency mission policies. When the delegated DCMA surveillance activity is the same as the prime
supplier representative's activity, e.g., mandatory inspection point, DCMA's effort should be after the prime
supplier's representative has accomplished the activity and accepted the result.
8. Manage delegated workload - The sender shall manage the workload including tracking the status of open
delegations and performance, and identifying required changes to the delegation. The receiver shall manage,
track, and measure work accomplished.
 8.1. For blanket delegations, the need for continued support shall be documented and the delegation
updated at least annually.

8.2. Close the delegation - The receiver closes the delegation and informs the sender that efforts have been
completed, including any lessons learned not already identified. Records of work performed in support of the
delegation shall be retained in accordance with Documents and Records.
 8.3. Provide feedback - The receiver shall communicate with the sender on a regular basis, keeping them
informed of performance status, significant issues, and concerns. After the delegation is completed, the
receiver and sender shall discuss any lessons learned.
                                            3
            ASSESSMENT                      FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION




DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS       DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION
                        4




                           Total
Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
Scheduled   Completed   Observations   Total OBS   % Effective
          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                         DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                      TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       QA Stamps
        2. The First Line Supervisor (FLS) shall determine the need for stamps based
        on customer and contract requirements for stamping products and/or
        documentation. Stamps may also be issued when it facilitates execution of QA
        surveillance even though there may not be a specific customer or contract
        requirement.
        2.1. The FLS shall make a determination of QA personnel qualifications when
        authorizing surveillance stamps to be issued. Only qualified personnel per the
        Quality Assurance Training instruction and NASA Competencies/Certifications)
        shall be authorized surveillance stamps.
        3. Stamps custodians shall be established at the HQ Operations, International
        and Special Programs Directorates and CMO levels. Custodians as applicable,
        shall issue stamps to QA personnel as assigned by the First Line Supervisor
        (FLS).

         3.1. All stamps issued to QA personnel shall be recorded by the stamp
        custodian using the DCMA Inspection Stamp Record. (See DCMA Inspection
        Stamp Record instructions) This record will indicate type, size, serial number of
        stamps and the name of the individual to whom each stamp is issued. The
        applicable DCMA or NASA stamp warranty statement shall be selected. For QA
        personnel performing both DoD and NASA workload, both warranty statements
        shall be selected. QA personnel shall sign for the stamp(s) when issued. These
        records shall be maintained by the stamp custodian.
        4. Use DCMA QA surveillance stamps - QA personnel shall use stamps within
        the qualifications determined by the FLS.
         4.1. The stamping of each item is neither required nor prohibited. Ordinarily,
        the stamping of shipping containers, packing lists, or routing tickets serves to
        adequately indicate the status of material and to control or facilitate its
        movement. Stamping may be requested by the customer in Quality Assurance
        Letters of Instruction (QALIs) or Letters of Delegation (LoDs). When stamping
        the product is required, the stamp impression shall be applied in accordance
        with the applicable technical data package or documented customer
        instructions.
        4.2. When it is authorized to waive a self-imposed surveillance task, the waived
        task may be indicated by annotating “waived” along with the QA personnel's
        initials and date on the supplier’s records. Stamps are not used in conjunction
        with waiving a surveillance task.
 4.3. When stamping, QA personnel shall:

   - Indicate the date of inspection
   - Ensure the legibility and durability of stamp impressions and ensure that
 stamps do not interlock with other stamps
   - Ensure that only properly authorized and qualified QA personnel are
 permitted to apply stamps
   - Maintain control of their assigned stamp at all times
   - Ensure that stamp impressions provide direct traceability to the individual
 applying the stamp
   - If required and where surveillance performance is attested to by application
 of stamps directly to the supplies, the stamp shall not be applied in a manner
 prohibited by drawings or specifications or which may degrade the quality of
 the product
   - Assure the application of stamps or data entry represents their professional,
 individual warranty that the surveillance was performed as literally stated on the
 applicable GCQA surveillance plan (e.g., Inspect, Test, Witness and Verify) and
 found conforming
  4.4. Previously applied stamp impressions may only be voided by the
 individual that applied the initial impression or the applicable FLS. When
 voiding stamp impressions apply:

   - a single ink line through the impression
   - "void" immediately adjacent to the lined out impression
   - initials of the person voiding the impression
   - date the impression is voided

 4.5. When stamping in support of NASA Letters of Delegations (LoD)/contracts,
QA personnel shall assure the application of the stamp impression or data entry
represents their professional, individual warranty (guarantee) that the
operator/inspector has personally examined the product, witness the process, or
verified the record as literally stated on the GMIP acceptance criteria and
surveillance plan. NASA stamps issued to DCMA QA personnel shall be
controlled in accordance with this instruction. DCMA serialized/issued
surveillance stamps may be substituted for NASA stamps.
 4.6. QA personnel shall maintain positive control of issued stamps. QA
personnel shall report lost or stolen or illegible stamps to their supervisor and
the stamp custodian immediately.


5. Inventory QA surveillance stamps - Stamp inventory shall be maintained. This
may be accomplished on a scheduled basis by month, quarter, or annually at the
discretion of the CMO. At a minimum, a stamp inventory shall be accomplished
by the stamp custodian on an annual basis. A fresh stamp impression for each
stamp is required on the DCMA Inspection Stamp Record during the inventory.
At the time of the inventory QA personnel with issued stamps shall re-execute the
stamp warranty by selecting the applicable DCMA or NASA stamp warranty
statement and signing the DCMA Inspection Stamp Record. For QA personnel
performing both DoD and NASA workload, both warranty statements shall be
selected. Unusable, destroyed, lost/stolen, or excess stamps shall be accounted
for and the inventory shall be verified by the stamp custodian.
 5.1. Stamp custodians shall maintain positive control of stamps in inventory to
preclude unauthorized use or access.
 5.2. Stamp custodians shall destroy unserviceable stamps in a manner that
renders the stamp unusable. The DCMA Inspection Stamp Record shall be used
to record the date and manner in which a stamp is destroyed if the stamp
becomes unserviceable for any reason. If a lost or stolen stamp is later
recovered, the stamp shall be destroyed, the stamp number shall be retired and
reported as such on the stamp inventory.

6. Turn in QA surveillance stamps - QA personnel shall turn in any stamps to the
stamp custodian that become unserviceable or upon transfer out of the CMO to
another organization and/or leaving the Agency. Stamps turned in to the stamp
custodian shall remain idle for a minimum period of six (6) months prior to re-
issuance
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                           DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                        TEAM:




Date   Requirement
       Risk Assessment

        1. QA Personnel Develop Risk Profile - Risk Assessment results in the
        development, modification, or validation of a Risk Profile. See Risk Profile and
        Plan. The Risk Profile shall be used by QA personnel in planning the
        appropriate GCQA surveillance activities. The Risk Profile provides the
        minimum documentation of the applicability of specific risk indicators and
        documents the relationship between risk indicators and planned GCQA
        surveillance activities. The profile and plan provide easily retrievable objective
        evidence to rationalize decreasing or increasing the GCQA surveillance efforts.
         For subcontractors with only Letters of Delegation to verify or witness specific
        tasks, a risk profile may not be necessary. In such cases, the list of activities
        specified in the delegation would serve as the surveillance plan.

        1.1. The risk profile may be used on a facility-wide basis (covering all supplier
        contracts), a program, product/ product line, or when appropriate on a contract by
        contract basis. Examples of situations under which contract by contract risk profiles
        may be appropriate include: Suppliers that normally go months between contracts and
        a supplier that is awarded a single contract markedly different from its other workload
        1.2. A risk profile has six areas to be addressed during the risk assessment
        process. The six areas are:
          Facility Process List
          Risk Impact (Risk Statement Generator)
          Risk Statement(s) (Risk Profile and Plan)
          Performance Factors Assessment
          Risk Causes (Risk Profile and Plan)
          Risk Likelihood Assessment (Risk Profile and Plan)


       2. QA personnel develop/update the Facility Process List - This is a list (or
       flowchart) of manufacturing, and support processes the supplier uses to design,
       produce, and deliver the contracted supplies and/or services. The facility
       process list shall be a part of the risk profile. The Facility Process List may be
       developed using an end-to-end review of the flow of product and data through
       the supplier's facility. The preferred method is to begin at packaging and
       shipping and to work backwards through all manufacturing and/or support
       processes to the initial contract planning process. Support processes include
       control of purchases, screening processes (inspection and test), and Material
       Inspection and Receiving Report (MIRR) preparation. For suppliers operating
       under a formal Quality Management System (QMS), the process list may identify
       the QMS as a whole, break out individual clauses, or any combination as needed.
3. QA Personnel Identify Risk - QA personnel shall review all available risk
information to identify potential risks and develop/update a risk profile. The
results of contract review provide QA personnel a good basis to identify potential
risks from both an impact and likelihood perspective when assessed in
conjunction with other risk information. Other sources of risk information
include but are not limited to:
   Customer Feedback, including QALIs & PQDRs
   Pre-Award Survey results
   Supplier Past Performance
   Critical Characteristics
   Critical Processes
   Contract or purchase order
   MOA, QALI or LOD
   Drawings
   Specifications
   Quality data and performance history


   3.1. QA personnel shall perform a risk impact assessment. Risk impact is the
   consequence of an uncertain event or condition occurring. The assessment
   consists of reviewing identified risk impact indicators on the Risk Statement
   Generator and making a determination of the applicability of each indicator to
   the contract, supplier, or product/service. QA personnel shall use the Risk
   Statement Generator to develop risk statements and shall document those
   statements and their associated risk impact rating (High, Moderate, or Low) on
   the Risk Profile and Plan. Risk statements answer the question, “What do we
   want to make sure doesn’t happen?” The Risk Statement Generator contains
   the minimum indicators associated with conditions or circumstances that
   would typically indicate a higher impact or consequence should the risk
   statement occur.
     3.1.1. Risk statements can be expressed in general terms such as “Supplier
     fails to deliver conforming items,” or in specific terms such as "Supplier fails
     to control CSI critical characteristics / processes." If none of the questions
     in the Risk Statement Generator apply, QA personnel shall use “Supplier
     fails to deliver conforming items” as the risk statement and identify the risk
     as "Low" for impact.
    3.1.2. On program acquisitions, customer coordination may provide
    program specific risk statements. For example, a risk statement addressing
    a specific milestone or event.
    3.1.3. The risk impact assessment should not be repeated for each contract
    unless additional requirements would add the need for an additional risk
    statement on the Risk Statement Generator.
4. QA personnel shall identify risk causes – Risk causes are the potential
reasons why a risk statement will occur and are documented in the Risk Causes
Column of the Risk Profile and Plan. The cause is expressed in terms of a
manufacturing, inspection or test process, product characteristic, Quality
Management System (QMS) clause, or other contractual requirement that if not
controlled might allow the risk to occur. Risk causes require GCQA surveillance
appropriate to the likelihood of occurrence.
   4.1. QA personnel shall complete the appropriate Performance Factors
   Assessment. The performance factors are designed to determine the risk
   causes. There are two Performance Factors Assessment forms, one for all
   suppliers and one with additional indicators for suppliers with higher-level
   quality requirements. They contain the minimum risk indicators to be
   addressed during this assessment. The assessment consists of a review of
   indentified risk performance factors, making a determination of the
   applicability to the supplier, and identifying processes with performance
   problems that would be considered risk causes. The results of data analysis
   (Data Collection and Analysis) shall be used as a key component for this
   assessment.

      4.1.1. The indicators are in the form of questions associated with the
     supplier’s experience and performance history that would typically indicate a
     higher likelihood of that risk statement occurring. The performance factors
     address the supplier’s demonstrated satisfactory accomplishment and
     control associated with the Quality Management System, Inspection
     practices, and manufacturing capabilities. In some cases the applicability of
     the indicator is unknown and should be recorded as such.



   4.1.2. The performance factors identified on the Performance Factor
   Assessment may be revised to align with Agency priorities.
   4.1.3. QA personnel shall review negative risk performance factors against
   each applicable risk statement to determine risk causes. Once identified,
   negative risk indicators are explained and documented on the Performance
   Factor Assessment to assist in risk cause identification.

  4.2. Risk causes shall also be identified from the Facility Process List. Those
  processes that if uncontrolled would result in the risk statement occurring shall
  be identified as risk causes. In a Standard Inspection environment with the
  default risk statement and no negative performance factors the risk causes will
  include as a minimum: the supplier's inspection and testing processes and any
  special processes.
5. QA Personnel shall determine the likelihood of occurrence for each risk cause -
  The more likely the risk cause is to occur, the more likely the risk statement is to
occur. The results of the Performance Factor Assessment, associated data
analysis, and the table below shall serve as the bases for likelihood ratings. The
likelihood ratings shall be documented in the Risk Profile and Plan.

6. QA personnel shall use the information and output of this process to complete
and document a GCQA surveillance plan in accordance with the GCQA
Surveillance Planning instruction- As GCQA surveillance is performed, the risk
information should mature and the risk knowledge should increase. The risk
profile should be kept current while there are active contracts with the supplier.
As risk events or changes in performance occur, determined through data
analysis, receipt of customer complaints, or CARs, impact and likelihood ratings
shall be reevaluated and updated, as applicable.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
     X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective
          1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

       REVIEWER:                        DATE:
       TECH SPEC:                     TEAM:




Date   Requirement


       1. Identify Contracts for SOF Surveillance – QA personnel shall identify
       contracts for aircraft production, modification, overhaul and repair.

       1.1. A SOF program shall be instituted for contracts associated with
       aircraft and containing the contract quality clauses granting the
       government's right of access and authority, FAR 52.246-2 through 52.246-8.

        1.2. SOF surveillance can only be accomplished on commercial contracts for
       aircraft when a contract addenda has been issued by the PCO stipulating the
       government's rights for SOF surveillance. If SOF surveillance is requested on
       commercial contracts and there is no addenda, the DCMA contracting
       officer shall work with the PCO to ensure the PCO includes a contract
       addenda stipulating the government's rights and the PCO apply and/or
       tailor the FAR Part 12 language in accordance with FAR 12.302(c) and
       DFARS 212.302(c). An MOA between the program office and DCMA is not a
       valid vehicle to contractually authorize a SOF program on a commercial contract.
       1.3. For DCMA administered contracts performed overseas, QA personnel
       should decide whether to delegate to the applicable Host Nation. DCMA
       SOF requirements shall be discussed with the Host Nation to determine if a
       surveillance strategy that meets the intent of a SOF program can be
       established. See DCMA Instruction for International Agreements /
       International Memoranda of Understanding / Host Nation Contract
       Management Services.
       1.4. DCMA does not normally accept external customer delegations for
       contracts where DCMA is not the contract administration office for facilities
       where the military service has turned over routine mission aircraft flight
       operations to a contractor. For further guidance on this issue, refer to the
       Workload Acceptance Policy. Division assistance should be requested as
       needed.
       2. Identify SOF List - QA personnel shall identify the appropriate SOF
       List to be used in developing the SOF surveillance strategy.
2.1. When available, QA personnel shall use approved Standard SOF
Platform Lists located at LATEST CHANGE SOF Platform List.
Deviations from or modifications to these approved lists at the CMO level
are not permitted.
      2.1.1. Requests to modify approved Standard SOF Platform Lists may be
processed though the Lead/Owning CMO to the Aeronautical Systems Division
Technical Directorate.
         2.1.1.1. Lead/Owning CMOs shall assign a point of contact (POC) to
control, maintain, and coordinate modification requests to the Standard
SOF Platform List(s) for which they are responsible. This includes
notifying the Aeronautical Systems Division Technical Directorate, when
aircraft design changes occur.
      2.1.2. Standard SOF Platform Lists are in a spreadsheet format. All
columns to the right of the pre-populated information are for CMO use,
but altering any pre-populated information by CMOs is prohibited. SOF
Platform List
      2.1.3. If a Platform List does not yet exist, a CMO may request through the
Aeronautical Systems Division Technical Directorate to establish a CMO
initiated platform team to develop a Standard SOF Platform List. Additional
2.2. If a Standard SOF Platform List does not yet exist, QA personnel shall
use a Local SOF List (template).

     2.2.1. Local SOF lists shall be developed by the local QA personnel in
coordination with the Government Flight Representative (GFR) and
Aircraft Maintenance Manager (AMM) using the Foundation List and all
available technical information. A line-by-line comparison of the local SOF
List with the Foundation List shall be accomplished to assure all necessary
items are captured. The Local SOF List (Local SOF List Template):
shall contain the Foundation List reference numbers, operation, item/unit,
feature, characteristic, element, method, technique, tool, supplier's
planning document and planning step number and
cover the current work effort, but shall also encompass the remainder of
the aircraft SOF requirements in order to accommodate unplanned work.
Unplanned work is work such as that accomplished to facilitate other
maintenance, or is outside the scope of the planned work i.e. over and
above (O/A) work requests, but
does not formally classify single point failure SOF items
3. SOF at Sub-Contract Facilities - SOF surveillance shall be conducted at
sub-contract facilities where the sub-contractor encloses SOF items or
systems within an aircraft section, which are installed at another facility
and are not to be reopened and inspected (e.g., fuselage containing a fuel
tank). A delegation shall be issued in accordance with delegation
requirements in Paragraph 3.15 of the PA Instruction to advise the
supporting CMO at the subcontract facility of this requirement.
Delegations shall be issued even if the prime and supporting facilities are
within the same CMO. A delegation is not required when Place of
Performance is designated in the contract, but the prime CMO shall
communicate requirements.
   3.1. The prime CMO shall provide the SOF List as part of the delegation.
      3.2.1. The Standard SOF Platform List shall be used when available
and the delegation shall contain the following statement, "DCMA personnel
shall accomplish SOF surveillance IAW the attached approved Standard
Platform List for this aircraft. Changes to this list are not authorized.”
      3.2.2. If there is no Standard SOF Platform List available, a Local
SOF List shall be developed. If the delegating office lacks the skill-set to
establish the Local SOF List, the delegation shall request the supporting
CMO to develop and coordinate a Local SOF List. The delegation shall be


4. Determine Surveillance Strategy - SOF surveillance strategy is based upon
the SOF List (Standard SOF Platform List or Local SOF List). The Standard
SOF Platform List contains both Single Point and Non-Single Point Failure
items. Local SOF Lists do not contain Single Point and Non-Single Point
Failure classifications.
4.1. All Single Point Failure SOF items shall require 100% Product Examination
(Paragraph 3.5 of the PA Instruction) Appropriate DCMA hold points shall be
established in the supplier's planning documents for each Single Point Failure SOF
item.
     4.1.1. Each SOF Product Examination shall be decomposed on the SOF List to
identify the:
- Exact technique to be used i.e. Inspect, Witness, Test, or Verify
- Applicable tool (s) e.g. Visual, Audible, Tensiometer, Torque Wrench, etc.
4.2. An Alternate Strategy shall be developed for each Non-Single Point Failure SOF
item. Alternate strategies shall not be used for Single Point Failure SOF items.
Alternate strategies shall be risk based using both Process Review and Product
Examination (Paragraph 3.5 of the PA Instruction) and Paragraphs 4.25.2 and 4.25.3
of the PA Guidance to validate the output of the process and data analysis to
validate overall results and performance.
     4.2.1. QA personnel shall conduct an initial Process Review and Product
Examination on non-single point failure items to validate the output of the process.
     4.2.2. Continuing surveillance - QA personnel shall determine the interval for
recurring Process Review efforts and the associated Product Examination to validate
process output.
       4.2.2.1. The review may cover all elements at one time or selected portions
performed on an incremental basis. An incremental Process Review enables QA
personnel to identify all the characteristics associated with the process and to
perform a review of those characteristics on an incremental basis over a specified
time period until all the characteristics have been reviewed. Incremental reviews used
for an on-going surveillance techniques shall be planned at recurring predetermined
time intervals.
       4.2.2.2. The interval of Process Reviews or increment intervals and associated
Product Examinations should be based on risk and supported though analysis of the
supplier's performance. All Process Review characteristics shall be reviewed within a
12 month period. This period may be extended beyond 12 months depending on
aircraft throughput and shall have documented Divisional concurrence.
       4.2.2.3. Product Examination intervals shall be risk based but shall not exceed:
Every 180 days for facilities producing or modifying five aircraft or less per year
Every 90 days for facilities producing or modifying six to twenty aircraft per year

 4.3. The surveillance strategy for Local SOF Lists shall be 100% Product Examination.
 4.4. Independent inspection of SOF characteristics is the preferred Product
Examination technique. When verification through objective evidence and
concurrent fuel cell inspection techniques are used, they shall be accomplished
according to the following paragraphs.
     4.4.1. Verification of SOF characteristics through data/records shall only be
used when the objective evidence is produced by automated test equipment, or is
inherently a paper process.
       4.4.1.1. Where verification through objective evidence is employed for
automated equipment, QA personnel shall develop a strategy for maintaining
confidence in the automated process, equipment, and personnel (e.g., training of
operator, calibration of equipment, equipment set up procedures, etc). This may
require Process Review methodologies to be used in conjunction with Product
Examinations. QA personnel shall have documented objective evidence of the
results substantiating that the supplier has effective and consistent process controls.
     4.4.2. Independent inspection of Fuel Cells by DCMA are preferred, however, if
unbroken line-of-sight witness of the contractor performing the inspection is
necessary, concurrent inspection is acceptable. The method used shall be
documented using "I" (inspect - independent) or "W" (witness - concurrent) in the
QA surveillance records.
4.5. Perform Data Analysis - In addition to documentation requirements addressed
in Data Collection and Analysis, SOF data collection and analysis shall also include:
- Identification of the SOF data to be analyzed
- DCMA SOF surveillance results
- Supplier inspection data relative to the SOF characteristics
- SOF CARs
- Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) or other customer complaint data
related to SOF shall be included
- Trends of data analyzed


  4.6. QA personnel shall have a strategy to address SOF requirements in unplanned
work. Unplanned SOF work includes where SOF items are disturbed through:
- Over & Above work requests
- Work to facilitate other maintenance (FOM)
- Breaks of inspection (BOI) where DCMA has previously accepted an SOF
inspection/characteristic
- Grounding conditions entered in the applicable aircraft forms that correlate with
the SOF List
- QA personnel shall stamp or sign the appropriate place in the aircraft forms. - -
Technical Order documentation format does not apply for this effort
- Service or safety bulletins, time compliance technical orders, etc.
- QA personnel shall have a method of being notified of technical/service bulletins
that may affect airworthiness such as safety time compliance technical order
(TCTO), aircraft discrepancy report (ADR), safety bulletin (SB), aviation safety action
message (ASAM)-(Army), technical directive (TD), airframe bulletin (AB), airframe
changes (AC)-(Navy). Typically this is coordinated locally with the contractor and or
program office.

4.7. QA personnel shall provide the supplier a contractor notification letter
(standard or local) (required for all SOF programs), containing the SOF List, approach
for identifying mandatory requirements, unplanned work requirements, breaks of
inspection (BOI), CAR requirements for SOF, and a requirement that changes to
supplier planning that affect established government mandatory inspections cannot
be changed without DCMA concurrence (Frozen Planning).
4.8. DCMA INST 8210.1 requires an annual GFR survey in which the QA Specialist
participates as a member of the Aviation Program Team (APT). A QA Specialist with
the necessary SOF experience and knowledge (Competency and Certification) shall
be assigned to the APT. During this survey the QA Specialist shall accomplish pre-
Aircraft Operations Inspections (AOIs) using the QA AOI checklists.
     4.8.1. QA personnel shall actively engage the AMM and GFR to assist with
Foreign Object Damage (FOD) surveillance, including lost tools.
     4.8.2. If the GFR procedure for impounding aircraft during off-shifts does not
involve QA personnel, the QA strategy shall address these requirements. As a
minimum, the SOF plan shall reference the GFR procedure.
4.9. The SOF plan shall be coordinated with the GFR and AMM. As the strategy
changes or GFR/AMM assignments change, the coordination shall be re-
accomplished. The GFR and AMM coordination is to ensure the APT is
knowledgeable of DCMA QA's surveillance approach to SOF.
5. Document SOF Plan - QA personnel shall document the details of the SOF strategy
in an electronic SOF plan. The SOF Plan consolidates all the procedures, significant
correspondence (history), and activities that occur on the SOF program. The SOF
Plan shall be documented sufficiently to ensure a consistent and repeatable
surveillance approach. The SOF Plan shall be clearly identified and kept separate
from other surveillance plans.
5.1. The SOF Plan shall include:
- An electronic control panel that serves as a table of contents and contains links to
all the information/documents contained in the plan
- The applicable SOF List (Standard SOF Platform List or Local List)
- Details of an alternate strategy for non-single point failure SOF items
- Details for handling unplanned SOF surveillance
- A copy of the contractor notification letters (Local or Standard) detailing
mandatory inspections and associated actions
- Details of SOF Data Collection and Analysis
- The location of surveillance and data analysis records
- List and status of SOF trained QA personnel
- OJT Training documentation of new personnel that includes each specific
surveillance/inspection identified on the SOF List
- QA personnel responsibility for GFR annual survey, FOD and lost tool surveillance
and if applicable, aircraft impound procedures during off shifts
- A copy of the most current signed and dated GFR notification letter. This letter
provides documentation the SOF plan has been coordinated with the GFR/AMM.
- Description/procedure of any unique aspects that occur locally on the SOF
program and/or facility (platform uniqueness, contractor administrative distribution
or processes, etc)
 5.2. Each CMO or Division with multiple SOF programs shall assign a SOF
Coordinator as the central point of contact for SOF issues within the CMO/Division.
Each SOF program shall have a QA Specialist assigned locally to control, manage, and
maintain the SOF plan at their assigned facility.
6. Perform SOF surveillance - SOF surveillance shall be performed by functional
personnel with the appropriate experience and training to meet the Competency
and Certification requirements below.
7. Document SOF Surveillance Results - In addition to documentation requirements
addressed in Product Assurance paragraph 3.10, SOF surveillance documentation
shall include:
- The specific aircraft serial/tail number
- The specific SOF area and item
- Specific SOF characteristics inspected
- Specific SOF characteristic that failed

7.1. SOF documentation shall be clearly identified and separate from any other
customer imposed or locally imposed mandatory inspection requirements.

8. Issue Corrective Action Requests - In addition to requirements in the Corrective
Action Request (CAR) Policy, a level II CAR shall be issued when a government SOF
inspection point is bypassed including BOIs.

  8.1. A Level III CAR should be considered for a repeat defect on a Non-Single Point
Failure SOF characteristic within a six month period. Level III CARS are required for
Single Point Failure repeat deficiencies identified within a one year period.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS
    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
                                                                          0
Total OBS   % Effective
   0
             1910 SUPERVISORY EVALUATION GUIDE LIST

         REVIEWER:                             DATE:
         TECH SPEC:                          TEAM:




  Date   Requirement

STD INSP Standard Inspection Requirement

         1. QA Personnel shall determine whether the supplier has an Inspection System
         that is acceptable to the government prior to accepting product Regardless of
         Quality requirement, FAR 52.246-2 requires in paragraph (b) that "The Contractor shall
         provide and maintain an inspection system acceptable to the Government covering
         supplies under this contract and shall tender to the Government for acceptance only
         supplies that have been inspected in accordance with the inspection system and have
         been found by the Contractor to be in conformity with contract requirements." FAR
         52.246-3 through 8 have similar requirements.

         2. GCQA surveillance plans shall address how the determination is made that the
         suppliers inspection system is acceptable to the government for the products
         supplied. Verification can be through any appropriate methods (e.g.- PAOC, Product
         Examination, Process Review, System Audit, etc.) but should be planned and
         performed as early in the product realization process as possible.
         3.Assessing the supplier's inspection system- QA Personnel shall verify that the
         supplier maintains an inspection system. The adequacy of the system is determined
         based on Product Quality History, complexity, Application and Technical Description,
         Contract Requirements, Effectiveness of Manufacturing Operations, and the Supplies
         Procured or Produced.
           3.1. Surveillance activities shall verify that the supplier prepares records
           evidencing all inspections made under the system and the outcome. These
           records shall be kept complete and made available to the Government during contract
           performance for as long as the contract requires.


           3.2.1. GCQA surveillance of supplier planning activities shall verify that the supplier:
            Has copies of drawings with proper revision level and date.
            Has copies of all applicable specifications?
            Has correctly identified packaging requirements?
            Has correctly identified marking requirements including IUID & RFID?
            Is familiar with WAWF and the processing requirements (including IUID data
            requirements?
            Has identified applicable NDT requirements?
            Has identified QPL items and suppliers?
            Has identified all processes and process inputs that require or pre-production
            approval?
            Provides access to adequate facilities and equipment to support government source
            inspection?
            Assures that sub-contractors provide access to adequate facilities and equipment to
            support government source inspection?
   Has passed all applicable technical and quality requirements on to suppliers?
 3.2.2 GCQA surveillance of supplier Inspection activities shall verify that the
 supplier:
   Has an adequate selection of inspection equipment for examination of the items
   procured?
   Maintains an acceptable calibration system which includes records, traceability to a
   recognized national standard, and a recall system?
   Maintains records of all inspections and tests which indicate the nature and number
   of observations made, the type and number of deficiencies found, and quantities
   approved and rejected?
   Understands and uses statistically valid sampling plans?
 3.2.3. GCQA surveillance of supplier Corrective Action and Control of
 Nonconforming Material shall verify that the supplier:
   Has a system for assuring the quality of purchased material?
    Has a system for identifying and segregating nonconforming material?
    Understands the requirements for presenting nonconforming material to the
    government for acceptance?
    Maintains records of corrective action which address correction as to cause to
    prevent recurrence?
    Is familiar with WAWF and the processing requirements (including IUID data
    requirements?
  3.3. QA Personnel shall initiate an appropriate Corrective Action Request in
  accordance with the Corrective Action Instruction whenever nonconformity with
  contractual requirements are discovered.
4. QA Personnel shall document the results of inspection system acceptability
determinations. Standard Inspection System Checklist contains the minimum
Inspection System characteristics and meets applicable documentation
requirements for both planning and verification of an acceptable inspection
system.
                          ASSESSMENT


Applies to
   this
Evaluation?   DOCUMENTS REVIEWED and EVALUATION METHODS

    X
3                                                                    4


FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION


                                                                        Total
                                             Follow-Up   Follow-Up    Defective
    DEFICIENCIES NOTED   CORRECTIVE ACTION   Scheduled   Completed   Observations
Total OBS   % Effective

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:157
posted:11/18/2010
language:English
pages:291
Description: Writing Commander Letter of Recommendation document sample