DCPA V2.

0 Audit
General note:
### Initial document release per the Management Review 4/16/12.

- All cells that do not require input are locked.

- All cells that require input on the report pages have a slight grey background

References:

If you need additional information please contact one of the persons listed below:
Jerry Sears, Navistar Defense Systems
Julie Xie, Navistar Integrated Supplier Quality Electronics
Edgar Bolanos, Navistar Integrated Supplier Quality Truck
John Metelko, Navistar Integrated Supplier Powertrain.

Dynamic Control Plan information required:

1) Supplier name, address and contact information.

2) Part number and part name for the part(s) to be audited.
3) Scope of the audit.
4) The shifts and the shift hours that are the processes to be audited are operational.
5) Outsourced processes (such as heat treat, plating, coating)
6) PPE / Safety / Security requirements
7) Prior knowledge of the manufacturing processes involved or the part being audited.

Product Audit steps (summary):

1) Review supplier and part history

2) Complete the Pre-Audit tab.
3) Schedule the Dynamic Control Plan Audit
4) Execute the Navistar Dynamic Control Plan Audit
5) A description of the Objective Evidence reviewed is required in the comment
section for each question scored.
6) An explanation in the comment section is required for each question not scored.
7) Questions that score a 6 or less require that a Prism D0 Corrective Action be
opened. It is acceptable to log multiple issues on a single D0.
8) The table on the Corrective Action Plan tab is used to summarize the D0 activity.
9) Closing meeting (leave a copy of report with the supplier)
10) Filing/emailing of assessment report (using prismportal.net and sharepoint)
11) Supplier Corrective action (using prismportal.net)

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Cover Page

1) Enter supplier name (max. 22 letters)

2) Enter supplier location (max. 27 letters, city or town only, if necessary be more
descriptive)
3) Enter dates of the assessment (max 27 letters)
4) Enter report name (max. 42 letters, should be the same as the file name you will file
it under
a) Format: DCPA-Short Supplier Name_Site Code_Part Number_Short Part
Name_yymmdd
b) yy – year, mm – month, dd – day
5) Enter name of Lead Assessor (max. 28 letters, if there are other assessors, please
enter their name(s) on A report page 1 under remarks)
6) Once the Dynamic Control Plan Audit is complete, send an electronic copy of the
DCPA to your Manager for holding until an electronic filing method is established.

When the Audit is complete:

In the lower portion of this page, the assessment results (in percentage) and the classification
(A, B or C) will be shown.

Report Summary Tab

1) Enter the following information in the corresponding fields:

a. Supplier Address, Supplier City/Town/State, Country
b. Responsible person at the supplier (would often be the Quality Manager)
c. Phone number and email of the responsible person
d. List the part number, part name and processes audited
e. Check box Initial or Periodic
f. Remarks – enter any special information or names of additional assessor(s)
2) At the end of the assessment, the responsible person and the assessor sign and date
on the bottom of this page. The signature identifies the acknowledgement that the
supplier received this report.
3) When the assessment is complete, the resulting score and classification is shown just
below the middle of the page.

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Scoring

No data entry on this page. It shows the scoring criteria. (all cells are locked)

B report page 1

No data entry on this page. All information is extracted and calculated from other
worksheets. (all cells are locked)

When the assessment is complete, this shows that the score by sub categories. It shows
graphically what areas require the most improvement.

C report page 1

No data entry on this page. (all cells are locked)

When the assessment is complete, this pages gives the scoring of each of the questions. If
a question was not answered, it will show a blank on this page. The sub element scores
are calculated and the final score is at the bottom right.

D. Audit Notes

Information can be added here that supports the question and overall audit scoring. (note:
to create a new line in the text block, use <alt> <enter>)

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Product Audit
The product audit form has space to record the measurement results of up to 15
characteristics. During the DCPA it is expected that the Auditor will observe the actual
production and inspection process. Hence an additional formal part inspection is not required
in all cases. The Product Audit form is included as there may be occurrences when the
Auditor requires a formal inspection report.

Part Information can be entered in the following cells:

1) Technician (doing the measuring or result reporting)

2) Product Desc, Part number, Lot code, Mfg. Date

Row 1 through 15 can be used to report the characteristic, gaging method, nominal,
tolerances and measured value(s) and OK/NG. (note: this information is usually filled out by
the gage technician).

The far right column is used to identify situations where a major problem with a
characteristic has been determined. In that case check the remedial action cell behind the
problematic characteristic and complete any other information in the cell at the bottom of the
report. An 8D in prismportal may be issued by the assessor.

DCP Questions Summary

This is a one page report with all the DCPA questions.

Dynamic CP Audit

30 questions are in this worksheet. The following information should be entered:

1) For each question, enter your comments and the score by placing an “X” in the
appropriate box.
2) If you place more than one “x” or another value in a cell, some of the cells will turn
red and a warning is generated on the cover page and A report page 1. Please correct
the errors.
3) Questions not scored or questions that generate a score of 6 or less will result in the
comments section being shaded. The shading in the comment section is not present
for questions scored 8 and above.
4) At the top right corner a running total of how many questions have been answered as
well as a score breakdown.
5) For each question, write a comment documenting the objective evidence observed and
/ or the non-compliance that you have found.
6) If a question does not apply to this audit, leave it blank. It will be omitted in the
scoring. Please make a note in the comment cell why the question is not applicable for
this audit.

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 DCPA V2.0 Audit
(Dynamic Control Plan Audit)
Report Title: JULY AUDITORY
Audit Day: 4/JULY/2016 Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA
Reason for Audit: COMPLIANCE TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT ISO/TS 16949
Requested by: GILBERTO REYNA
Supplier's Information
Supplier Code:
Supplier Name: EZIMETALES
Address: LERDO DE TEJADA STA CATARINA NL

City, State STA CATARINA ZIP Code:

Country: MEXICO

Supplier's Quality Management System Registration

QMS Registrar Certificate Issue Date
ISO/TS 16949 TBD TBD

Previous NSA Score: NA Last NSA Date: NA

Assessment Result
Products / Product Group Rating Classification

D0 G8D Number:

Authorized Supplier Rep.: Date:

Tel. No. email:

Rev: A
ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012
Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Auditor: Date:

Rev: A
ISQ-006-FO Date: 11/01/2012
Copies must be verified for current revision.
 DCPA V2.0 Audit
(Dynamic Control Plan Audit)
Opening Meeting Closing Meeting
Audit First Day: 4/JULY/2016 Auditor: GILBERTO REYNA
Supplier's Information
Supplier Code:
Supplier Name: EZIMETALES
City, State STA CATARINA ZIP Code:

Name Title Phone Email

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

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

Rev: A
Copies must be verified for current revision.
25.

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

Rev: A
Copies must be verified for current revision.
 DCPA Pre-Audit
Product Maintenance Issue Review Launch Other
Audit Purpose

Focus of Audit Complete MFG Process Cell Operation Other

DCPA history Dynamic Control Plan Audit Scope

(What do you plan to audit)
Date of Last DCPA

Score

Generate Rapid Response History

Prism 8-D History

Are there open 8-D's ? yes no

If yes list the 8-D number and identify the step the 8D is at

D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8

D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8

Is progress to closure satisfactory yes no

Are there prior closed 8-D's yes no

If yes list 8D Number Permanent Corrective Action Summary Or Copy-Paste from Prism

Date: 11/1/2012
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A
Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Date: 11/1/2012
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A
Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Scoring

Supplier: EZIMETALES Location: STA CATARINA

Report: JULY AUDITORY Date: 4/JULY/2016

Assessment Score Evaluation Classification

90 to 100 Acceptable A
80 to less than 90 Improvement Needed B
Less than 80 Unacceptable C

Evaluation of compliance
Points Comments
with individual requirements

Full compliance with Record objective evidence reviewed that supports

10
requirements full compliance.

Deviation from target but without effect on function.

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

A process problem which may potentially lead to

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

A process problem which may potentially lead to

a product nonconformance and which will surely
be claimed by all internal/ external customers.
No compliance with
0 Examples: safety risk, missing work steps,
requirements
damages causing functional disturbances. Rework
at internal customer. Record the non conformance
observed. (Corrective Action REQUIRED)

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Scoring

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 DCPA Score Summary

Supplier: EZIMETALES Location: STA CATARINA

Report: JULY AUDITORY Date: 4/JULY/2016

Dynamic Control Plan

Conformance 60 70 80 90 100
Elements
level %

1. Process Documentation - Overview E1

2. Receiving Inspection E2

3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process E3

4. Final Inspection / Shipping E4

B report

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 DCPA Score Summary

Supplier: EZIMETALES Location: STA CATARINA

Report: JULY AUDITORY Date: 4/JULY/2016

Military Product Audit

1. Process Documentation - Overview
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
E1 ###

2. Receiving Inspection
.1 .2 .3 .4
E2 ###

3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16
E3 ###

4. Final Inspection / Shipping

.1 .2 .3
E4 ###

Conformance Level EP (%) per groups of products: EMP (%) = N1*E1 + N2*E2 + N3*E3 + N4*E4 (%)
# of total evaluated elements

C Report

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Audit Notes

Supplier: EZIMETALES Location: STA CATARINA

Report: JULY AUDITORY Date: 4/JULY/2016

Risk Review: Objective Evidence and Recommendations and Follow-Up

Dynamic Control Plan Summary:

Audit Notes

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Product Desc.:
Location: STA CATARINA Part number:
Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Lot code: Remed
ical
Date: 4/JULY/2016 Mfg. date: Action
Technician: Result:

Item Product characteristic Gaging / Test Method Nominal Tolerance Measured Value (s) OK / NG

10

11

12

13

14

15

If Remedial Action required: Hold Tag: 8D or CAR:

Supplier Concurrence: Assessor:

Corrective Actions for Minor non-conformances:

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

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

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

1. Process Documentation - Overview

Points of example:
Are the Navistar drawings - Purchase Order
1.1 in use at the correct suffix - Contract requirements ACCEPTABLE : DRAWING SHOWS CORRECT INF. 1.1

and revision level? - CAD Search

- Pharos

Are all technical

Points of example:
specifications listed on the
- EMD IT WAS REVISED CEMS B-50 STANDARD AS ACCEPTABLE
1.2 Navistar drawing available 1.2
- CEMS AND TMS9015 FOR PAINT .
at the manufacturing
- TMS
location?

Points of example:
- PO
1.3
Is the PSW complete and - Buyer Information PSW IS SIGNED OFF MEETS FULL APPOVAL 1.3
correct? - Run at Rate REQUIREMENT.
- Full PPAP
- Interim PPAP with action plan

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 18 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

Complete a walk-through of the process with the Process Flow

Chart in hand.
Is the Process Flow
Points of example: NOT FLOW DEFINED IN EPS SYSTEM . PFD MATCHES
1.4 Diagram available and 1.4
- The actual material flow vs. the document ACTUAL MATERIAL FLOW.
correct?
- Operations not documented
- Changes / new or modified equipment
- Re-work / repair operations

Points of example:
Is the PFMEA available and - Verify that a team approach is used
1.5 in compliance to AIAG - Are the RPN values aligned to AIAG requirements? FORMAT NEEDS TO MATCH AIAG COMPLETELY. 1.5

requirements - Are RPN values updated when specifications change or corrective

actions are implemented?

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

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 19 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

Points of example:
- Rapid Response history at that supplier
Is there a "Rapid
1.7 - Response time tracking by the supplier 1.7
Response" plan?
- Frequency of Rapid Response issues
- Tracking and analysis of Customer Concerns

2. Receiving Inspection

Points of example:
What methods are used to
- CoC / CoA
verify that incoming
2.1 - Certs 2.1
materials meet
- PPAP
requirements?
- Physical inspection

Points of example:
- Tagging for conforming and NCM
Are incoming materials
2.2 - FIFO 2.2
stored properly?
- Preservation
- NCM area available and identified

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 20 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

Have an operator demonstrate the process.

Is there a controled
Points of example:
2.3 process for incoming 2.3
- Are work instructions readily available.
materials?
- Is the work instruction being followed?
- Control Plan

2.4
Are receiving inspection Review records for evidence of product disposition for acceptable 2.4
records complete? and NCM material.

3. Workstation / Manufacturing Process

Review a demonstration of the 1st piece inspection process

Points of example:
Is there a First Piece
- Is the process robust to ensure complete conformance?
3.1 Inspection process in 3.1
- Is the inspection frequency adequate?
place?
- Are records complete and available?
- Do records indicate authority for release ?
- Is first piece tagged or otherwise retained?

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 21 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

Points of example:
- Control Plan
Are sample sizes and
- PFMEA
inspection frequencies for
3.2 - Operator Demonstrations 3.2
each operation adequate to
- Records
assure conformance?
- Statistical Tables
- Review Product and Process inspection frequencies

Points of example:
Are operator instructions
- Accessible
readily available to the
3.3 - Current 3.3
operator for each
- Controled
operation?
- Updated for special events, Quality Alerts

Have operator demonstrate the use of the work instruction. When

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

Have operator demonstrate the NCM control process.

Do work instructions
include information on the
3.5 Points of example: 3.5
handling of non-conforming
- Tagging / traceability
material?
- Segregation / Quarantine of product
- Records
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 22 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012
Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

What is the plan to Points of Example:

3.6 substitute in case of - Training matrix 3.6

employee absence? - Certifications

Have operator demonstrate the use of gauges.

Are the required gauges Points of example:

3.7 available and are they uesd - Work Instructions 3.7

effectively? - Control plan

- 5S Practices
- R&R studies

Points of example:
- Damaged gauge policy
Is gauge integrity being
3.8 - Gauge R&R studies 3.8
managed?
- Gauge mastering frequence
- Gauge calibration frequency

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 23 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

Points of examples:
- FMEA
Does the manufacturing
- Control Plan
3.9 process meet the required 3.9
- Statistical requirements
capability?
- Part print
- Technical Data Package

Have operator demonstrate the charting process.

Does the process control Points of example:

3.10 plan call for SPC? Is the - Charts and records analyzed 3.10

data properly recorded? - Reaction to out of control points with Root Cause Identified
- Prints and Technical requirements
- FMEA and Control Plan

Have operator demonstrate the inspection and data collection

process for multiple product parameters.
Is there evidence that all
3.11 in-process inspection is Points of example: 3.11

complete? - In-process inspection records

- Control Plan
- Work Instruction

Points of example:
How is part traceability - Identification tags
3.12 maintained throughout the - Travelers 3.12

manufacturing process? - Bar code

- Records

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 24 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

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

Have operator demonstrate error-proofing methods.

3.14
Are effective error-proofing Points of example: 3.14
methods implemented? - Go/No-Go masters
- Mastering frequency
- Vision system

Points of example:
Are special operations
- Heat treat
3.15 utilized? Are they properly 3.15
- Part washing
controlled?
- NDT inspection

Points of example:
- 5S
Are all areas maintained to
- Appropriate lighting
3.16 enhance productivity and 3.16
- Safety programs
quality?
- Ergonomics
- Cleanliness
ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 25 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012
Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Supplier: EZIMETALES Open Questions: 30

Location: STA CATARINA Answered: 0

DCPA V2.0 Audit (Dynamic Control Plan Audit) Assessor: GILBERTO REYNA Score Distribution:

Date: 4/JULY/2016 0 0 0 0 0

Part Number Score

Q. Question Guidance / Suggestions for Objective Evidence Comments 0 4 6 8 10

4. Final Inspection / Shipping

Points of example:
Are final inspection
- Control Plan
4.1 activities listed on the 4.1
- Work Instructions
control plan?
- Prints / Technical specifications

Have operator demonstrate the final inspection process.

Points of Example:
How is conformance to
- Functional gauges
4.2 requirements verified at 4.2
- Geometric verification
final inspection?
- Labeling
- Prevention of mixed parts
- Dock audits

Points of example:
Does the part audited - Packaging
4.3 comply with D-13 - Preservation 4.3

requirements? - Mistake proofing for labeling operation

ISQ-006-FO Rev: A - Page 26 of 29 Date: 11/01/2012

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Corrective Action Request
Supplier: Supplier Code: DCPA Date:

Process: G8D Number: Completion

Target:
1. DCPA Requirement

Navistar Representative to Complete

2. Statement of non conformance

3. Objective Evidence

Auditor: Audit Date:

4. Non-Conformance Notification
Responsible: Date Response Required By:
Notified:
5. Root Cause Analysis

Identification
Method:
6. Corrective Action
Action Responsible Promise Date

Supplier Representative to complete

7. Response Record
Date Received:
Received From:
8. Verification and Follow-up

Approved by:
Approval Yes No

Follow-up Responsible: Date:

Follow-Up Date Next Follow-Up Auditor

9. Effectiveness Verification
Navistar Representative to
Complete

10. Corrective Action Closure

Auditor: Date:

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
 Corrective Action Request

Supplier: LGO Global Sourcing Supplier Code: 48526X3 DCPA Date: 8/20/12

Process: P6.3 Production Personnel Resources G8D Number: 18143 Completion 8/20/12
Target:
1. DCPA Requirement / Question
3.3 "Do work instruction include the handling of non-conforming material?"

Navistar Representative to Complete

2. Statement of non conformance
Process establish to ensure that non-conforming product is handled appropriately is not fully effective at this time.
Filled out by Navistar Auditor

3. Objective Evidence
Non-conforming handling procedure, PROC-8.3-001, specifies that non-conforming material must be identified with a non-conforming tag and
placed into a red bin. At the time of the audit, operators were marking the non-conforming part with a dry erase marker and placing it on an
unidentified rack. No red tags or red bins were available line side as specified in the procedure.

Auditor: Audit Date:

Steve Erickson 8/20/12

4. Non-Conformance Notification
Responsible: Date Response Required By:
Notified:
5. Root Cause Analysis

Y
Identification e
Method:
s
6. Corrective Action
Action Responsible Promise Date

Supplier Representative to complete

Filled out by Company Audited

7. Response Record
Date Received:
Received From:
8. Verification and Follow-up

Approved by:
Approval

Follow-up Responsible: Date:

Follow-Up Date Next Follow-Up Auditor

9. Effectiveness Verification
Navistar Representative to

1) Competence, training and awareness procedure has been revised and there is evidence that it is being followed as prescribed. 2) Revised
competency records for new employees and all were inline with their skills need analysis. 3) Operators interviewed understand there job duties.
Complete

Filled out by Navistar Auditor

10. Corrective Action Closure
Auditor: Date:
Steve Erickson 11/20/12

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

Copies must be verified for current revision.
Rev. No. Effective Date Revision History
0 4/19/2012 Initial document release per the Management Review 4/16/12.
Formatting and instruction updates: At Q 1.7 added 4th point of
example. Q 3.8 changed dropped to damaged. Q 4.3 added
mistake proofing to labeling. Shading added to audit comment
section for: questions not scored and when score <7. Removed no
comment from scoring tab for max points, added statement of
1 5/8/2012
expectation. Removed Navistar Defense title from Product Audit.
Updated instructions lines 174 to end. Clarified who to send the
completed DCPA to. Decided upon a doc naming structure.

Corrected formatting error in the coloring of the cell for question 3.8
in the control plan audit. (The cell was changing to red with an
2 6/13/2012 acceptable score and remark; with an acceptable score and
comment the cell should have been white. This was corrected. No
issue with actual math used in scoring.)
Made updates to align with NSA V2.1 (cover sheet, corrective
V2.0 8/25/2012 action form), Adjust cell formated, verified formulas and printing
results.
Rev. A 11/1/2012 Document number is not ISO-006-FO. Minor edits.