PR-1984 Criticality Rating Procedure

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.
Criticality Rating Procedure
Document ID PR-1984
Document Type Procedure
Security Restricted
Discipline Quality Management
Owner UEQ, Quality Management Head
Issue Date 8 June 2011
Version 1.0
This document is the property of Petroleum Development Oman LLC. Neither the whole nor any part of
this document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior written
consent of the owner
Version: 1.0
Petroleum Development Oman LLC Effective: June-11
Approval Record Sheet
1.0 08/06/2011 Issued for Use U. Selva Sekar Saif Riyamy Gary Briston
Issued for
0 15/11/2010 U. Selva Sekar Saif Riyamy Gary Briston
Review
Version No. Date Description Originator Checker Approver
Page 2 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Live link®. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Version: 1.0
i Document Authorisation
Authorised For Issue

Version: 1.0
ii Revision History
The following is a brief summary of the most recent revisions to this document. Details of all
revisions prior to these are held on file by the issuing department.
Version No. Date Originator Scope / Remarks

0 15/11/2010 U. Selva Sekar, UEQ/131 Issued for review
1.0 08/06/2011 U. Selva Sekar, UEQ/131 Issued for use
iii Related Business Processes

Code Business Process (EPBM)
EP2006-5500 Opportunity and Project Management Guide
iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF)

Documents
Policy Risk Policy PL-03
Code of Practice Project Engineering Code of Practice CP-117
Risk and Opportunity Management Code of Practice CP-131
Quality Management System for Project Delivery CP-190
Code of Practice
Procedure Project Change Control & Standards Variance PR-1247
Procedure
Material Handling, Storage and Preservation PR-1858
Procedure
Quality Audit Procedure PR-1866
EMC/ODC Sourcing and Inventory Procedure (SIP) PR-1962
Equipment and/or Materials Receipt Inspection PR-1964
Procedure
Vendor Assessment & Registration Procedure (To Be PR-XXXX
Developed).
Specification Specification for Quality Assurance Requirements for SP-1171
Product and Service
v Related International Standards

ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System – Requirements
ISO 10006:2003 Quality Management Systems - Guidelines for Quality Management
in Projects
ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines
ISO/TS 29001:2010 Petroleum petrochemical and natural gas industries – Sector
specific quality management systems --- Requirements for product
and services supply organizations
ISO Guide 73:2009 Risk Management — Vocabulary

Version: 1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i Document Authorisation ..................................................................................................... 3
ii Revision History ................................................................................................................. 4
iii Related Business Processes .............................................................................................. 4
iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF) Documents ....................................... 4
v Related International Standards ......................................................................................... 4
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Scope........................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Objective ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Distribution / Target audience ....................................................................................... 6
1.5 Review and improvement ............................................................................................. 6
1.6 Step-out and approval .................................................................................................. 6
1.7 Definitions .................................................................................................................... 7
1.8 Abbreviations................................................................................................................ 8
2 Criticality Rating Process ................................................................................................... 9
2.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 9
2.3 Criticality Rating Criteria ............................................................................................. 10
2.4 Rush Orders, Bulk Orders & Re-Supply ...................................................................... 10
2.5 Quality Assessment Levels for Prospective Vendors ................................................... 11
2.6 Level-1 Quality Audits ................................................................................................. 11
2.7 Vendor Assessment ................................................................................................... 11
3 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Appendix A, Criticality Rating Data Sheet ................................................................... 12
3.2 Appendix B, Example typical Criticality Rating Data Sheet .......................................... 13
3.3 Appendix C, Typical QA/QC Activities ......................................................................... 14
3.4 Appendix D, User Feedback Form .............................................................................. 15

Version: 1.0
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this procedure is to describe the methods to be used by purchasers during
the ‗Request for Proposal‘ stage to determine the criticality rating of:
 Equipment
 Materials
 Vendors‘ pre-assessment/assessment requirements for registration in PDO PGSC
list.
Once the criticality rating has been determined by the purchaser, the quality assurance
team shall apply the criticality rating to determine the level of inspection that will be
required during assessment, manufacturing, construction or installation activities.
(Note: Purchaser is PDO, in-case of direct procurement from Vendors or its Contactors).
1.2 Scope
This procedure applies to all procured items, equipment and/or materials which are
sourced for PDO‘s assets/projects (in alignment with approved PDO PGSC listing) and for
evaluating vendors prior to assessment and inclusion in PGSC listing.
Standard procured items, equipment and/or materials identified as not requiring
formal criticality assessment shall be endorsed by the relevant CFDH.
1.3 Objective
The objective of this procedure is to formalize and standardize a risk based approach to
the criticality rating process.
1.4 Distribution / Target audience

This document is issued for use by Project/Asset/Function/QA/QM Teams of PDO as well
as all designated EMC/ODC/EPC Contractors.
1.5 Review and improvement

This document shall be reviewed every three years and or whenever there is a
requirement identified through audits, improvement points, suggestions and or concerns
(internal customer feedback) whichever is earlier.
1.6 Step-out and approval

Any deviation of this procedure shall be raised by the requester for approval by the
Document Custodian and used in-line with the requirements of PR-1247 - Project Change
Control & Standards Variance Procedure.

Version: 1.0
1.7 Definitions
Terminology Definition (for the purpose of this document)

Criticality Rating A rating applied against consequence of failure: An indication of
the level of importance to be attached to equipment and/or
materials, commensurate with the effect that failure would have on
a system, or in compromising safety of personnel, in the
environment or company economics. Base upon this indication,
the appropriate quality assessment level shall be established.
Quality Assessment A rating system level to be applied to determine vendor visit
Level assessment requirement.
Source Inspection Inspection performed at Vendor‘s works to verify compliance with
purchase order requirements.
Purchaser Purchaser is PDO, in-case of direct procurement from Vendors or
its Contactors.
Purchaser will generally specify the technical requirements. An

agent and/or consultant may be appointed by the purchaser to act
for, and on behalf of the purchaser.
Contractor The party which carries out all or part of the design, engineering,
procurement, construction, commissioning or management of a
project, or operation or maintenance of a facility.
Manufacturer The party, which fabricates and manufactures equipment and/or
materials and provide services to perform duties specified by PDO
and/or Contractor.
Supplier/Vendor The term Supplier/Vendor shall refer to the PDO's appointed
Consultants, Contractors, Manufacturers and Vendors.
Sub-Contractor The term Sub-Contractor refers to any Third Party or Sub Vendor
employed by the Supplier to perform part of the Contract
Originating Engineer The Engineer with appropriate TA2 level, who is responsible for
the design of equipment and/or materials and for establishing the
criticality rating data sheet. The Originating Engineer may be from
PDO and/or designated EMC/ODC/EPC Contractors.
Discipline/Process The Engineer with appropriate TA2 level, who is responsible for
Engineer the review of the design of equipment and/or materials. The
Discipline/Process Engineer may be from PDO and/or designated
EMC/ODC/EPC Contractors.
Process Owner CFDH of PDO or designee responsible for approval of the design
of equipment and/or materials.
Quality Assurance PDO and/or EMC/ODC/EPC Contractor‘s designated Quality
Engineer specialist responsible for the review of all equipment and/or
materials criticality ratings and determination of vendor
assessments and QC requirements.
Shall The word 'shall' used throughout this specification indicates a
mandatory requirement.
Should The word 'should' used throughout this specification indicates a
recommendation.
Rush Order Requirement of equipment and/or materials at site for PDO‘s
operation, which may result in oil deferment or potential risk to
HSE.
Critical Equipment Equipment, for which the evaluation of criticality rating is vital, will
be referred as critical equipment.
The Criticality Rating shall be developed with facility efficiency and

safety aspects in mind at all stages of work.

Version: 1.0
Bulk Equipment A large quantity of equipment and/or items, procured by or on

Order behalf of PDO.
Re-supply The supply of materials to meet order shortages, order shortages
may be due to:
 Rejection of products due to non-conformance to purchase
order and project specification at the time of material
receipt inspection.
 Non-availability of some of the products of a particular
order at the time of delivery from the supplier‘s premises.
1.8 Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description (for the purpose of this document)

CFDH Corporate Functional Discipline Head
CMF Corporate Management Framework
CP Code of Practice
EMC Engineering Maintenance Contract
EP Exploration & Production
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
GU Guidelines
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
ISO International Organisation for Standardization
ITP Inspection and Test Plan
ODC Off-plot Delivery Contract
PDO Petroleum Development Oman LLC
PGSC Product Group Service Code
PL Policy
PR Procedure
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
QMS Quality Management System
QM Quality Management
SGC Service Group Custodian
SP Specification
TA Technical Authority
TS Technical Specification
UEQ Head, Quality Management
WCC Work Category Custodian

Version: 1.0
2 Criticality Rating Process
2.1 General
The Criticality Rating Data Sheet (see Appendix A of this document) details the criteria to
be considered by the Originating Engineer when determining criticality ratings at the design
stage of equipment and/or materials.
Each criticality category is subdivided into four levels of severity, with appropriate rating
allocation ranges from 1 to 4. All categories shall be completed by the responsible persons
as identified in section 2.2 below.
2.2 Roles and Responsibilities
Roles Responsibilities (for the purpose of this document)

Originating The Originating Engineer is responsible for establishing the
Engineer Criticality Rating for equipment and/or materials assigned to him/her.
Assistance from other disciplines shall be sought when the

Originating Engineer does not have all relevant information needed
to make an accurate assessment against each criteria.
The Originating Engineer shall forward the Criticality rating Data

Sheet to the appropriate Discipline Engineer for the review of
Criticality Rating of all equipment and/or materials within his/her
respective areas.
Discipline/Process If during review, the Criticality Rating leads to an ‗under‘ or ‗over‘
Engineer evaluation of the equipment and/or material‘s criticality, the
Discipline/Process Engineer may promote/demote to a higher or
lower Criticality Rating.
The reason shall be clearly specified by the Discipline Engineer in

the remarks section of the Criticality Rating Data Sheet to the
Process Owner for approval.
After approval, the Criticality Rating Data Sheet shall be forwarded

to the Quality Assurance Engineer.
Note: The Criticality Rating shall be developed with facility efficiency

and safety aspects in mind at all stages of work. Efficiency and
reliability equate to the avoidance of accidents and incidents.
Unnecessary facility shutdown is an additional risk that should be
avoided wherever possible. Safety and environmental aspects are of
prime concern and should be implicit within each category. Any
particular aspect relating to specific equipment and/or materials shall
be covered under the last category and the remarks section shall be
used to explain the details.
Process Owner The CFDH of PDO or PDO‘s designated person responsible for
design approval of equipment and/or materials.
Quality Assurance The Quality Assurance Engineer shall align criticality rating to the
Engineer required inspection level.
To ensure ongoing compliance with the agreed system, periodic

audits of the Vendor‘s Quality Management System may be carried-
out at the discretion of the Quality Assurance Engineer.

Version: 1.0
CFDH/WCC/SGC CFDH/WCC/SGC confirmation of requirement (vendors premises

(Vendor visit) based on the criticality rating of equipment/ materials/services.
pre-assessment/
assessment)
2.3 Criticality Rating Criteria

The criticality rating for the initial vendor pre-assessment/assessment (PGSC listing),
equipment and/or materials should be based on the following parameters:
 Operations failure of equipment and/or materials

 Design maturity/reliability
 Manufacturing complexity
 Cost implications of failure
 Service characteristics (toxicity, temperature, pressure)
 Location
 Personnel safety
 Special considerations (where necessary)
The criticality rating for equipment and/or materials shall be derived by determining and
assessing the critical activities (see section 3.1 Appendix A) against the total score as
follows:
Total Score from

Criticality
Appendix A of Description Nomenclature
Rating
this document
The Quality of performance reliability and
Extremely
25 - 32 manufacture is vital and must not be 1
critical
compromised.
17 - 24 2 Very critical
manufacture is of significant importance.
9 - 16 3 Critical
manufacture is of moderate importance.
The Supplier‘s Quality Assurance of the
Below 8 4 Non-critical
equipment and/or materials is acceptable.
Enter the overall criticality rating value (1, 2, 3 or 4) in the ―Criticality Rating‖ space on the
Criticality Rating Data Sheet.
Note: An individual identified and assessed high RISK impact may justify additional
assurance requirements, which if required shall be documented.
2.4 Rush Orders, Bulk Orders & Re-Supply

The establishment of criticality rating shall be applicable and applied to materials and/or
equipment including:
 Rush orders,
 Bulk orders,
 Re-supply (if previous evaluation not completed).
Any variance to the requirements of this procedure shall be approved by the relevant
CFDH in-line with PR-1247 - Project Change Control & Standards Variance Procedure.

Version: 1.0
2.5 Quality Assessment Levels for Prospective Vendors

Once derived the criticality rating shall be used to determine the level of QC surveillance.
Typical QA/QC activities are shown in Appendix C of this document. A copy of the
approved criticality rating shall be appended to the requisition package.
2.6 Level-1 Quality Audits

Level-1 Quality Audits will be conducted by UEQ function to verify the compliance and
effectiveness of the applied system.
Refer PR-1866 Quality Audit Procedure for the process requirements for planning,
scheduling, conducting, & reporting quality audits, including, where applicable, audit follow-
up activities, the selection of appropriate audit team members and maintenance of records.
2.7 Vendor Assessment

Vendor assessment shall be conducted as per the requirements of PR-XXXX (To be
developed) – Vendor Assessment and Registration Procedure.

Version: 1.0
3 Appendices
3.1 Appendix A, Criticality Rating Data Sheet

Equipment and/or Materials* Tag No.:
Vendor details (in-case of pre-assessment/assessment):
Description:
Contract No.: Purchase Order No.:
Criticality Categories Score
Operations failure of equipment and/or materials would:
 Allow use of installed bypass or change without difficulty 1
 Cause problems but not loss of production 2
 Allow bypass or change out but with some loss of production 3
 Jeopardise facility operation and have serious consequences i.e. facility shutdown 4
Design maturity/reliability:
 Proven design, used frequently 1
 Modification to proven design 2
 Extrapolation to proven design 3
 New innovative design 4
Manufacturing complexity:
 A few manufacturing processes, common construction materials 1
 Many simple manufacturing processes, common construction materials 2
 At least one complex manufacturing process or special construction material 3
 A large number of manufacturing processes or special construction materials 4
Cost implications of failure:
 Negligible 1
 Small total cost, both as direct result and as a consequence 2
 Moderate total cost, both as direct result and as a consequence 3
 High and excessive total cost, both as direct result and as a consequence 4
Service characteristics (toxicity, temperature, pressure):
 Innocuous 1
 Low hazard 2
 Medium hazard 3
 High hazard 4
Location:
 Isolated, operating personnel only 1
 Remote, low population only 2
 Public boundary, sensitive environmental 3
 High population, high sensitivity environment 4
Personnel safety, failure would have:
 No perceived risk to personnel 1
 Moderate risk to personnel mitigated by systems and equipment 2
 Significant risk to personnel 3
 High risk to personnel 4
Special considerations (where necessary):
1
Site visit assessment: Yes/No 2
3
4
Remarks: Total Score:
Criticality Rating:
Criticality Rating 1: Extremely critical Criticality Rating 2: Very critical
Criticality Rating 3: Critical Criticality Rating 4: Non-critical
CFDH/WCC/SGC** Originating Engineer Discipline/Process Process Owner
Engineer
Name: Name: Name: Name:
Signature: Signature: Signature: Signature:
Date: Date: Date: Date:
*Strikethrough, whichever is not applicable.

**For vendor assessment, CFDH/WCC/SGC to confirm the requirements (Yes or No) of visit to vendors premises.

Version: 1.0
3.2 Appendix B, Example typical Criticality Rating Data Sheet

Equipment and/or Materials* Tag No.: V-2101
Vendor details (in-case of pre-assessment/assessment): Not applicable
Description: First stage separator
Contract No.: XXXXXXX Purchase Order No.: XXXXXXXXXX
Criticality Categories Score
Operations failure of equipment and/or materials* would:
 Allow use of installed bypass or change without difficulty 1
 Cause problems but not loss of production 2
 Allow bypass or change out but with some loss of production 3
 Jeopardise facility operation and have serious consequences i.e. facility shutdown 4
Design maturity/reliability:
 Proven design, used frequently 1
 Modification to proven design 2
 Extrapolation to proven design 3
 New innovative design 4
Manufacturing complexity:
 A few manufacturing processes, common construction materials 1
 Many simple manufacturing processes, common construction materials 2
 At least one complex manufacturing process or special construction material 3
 A large number of manufacturing processes or special construction materials 4
Cost implications of failure:
 Negligible 1
 Small total cost, both as direct result and as a consequence 2
 Moderate total cost, both as direct result and as a consequence 3
 High and excessive total cost, both as direct result and as a consequence 4
Service characteristics (toxicity, temperature, pressure):
 Innocuous 1
 Low hazard 2
 Medium hazard 3
 High hazard 4
Location:
 Isolated, operating personnel only 1
 Remote, low population only 2
 Public boundary, sensitive environmental 3
 High population, high sensitivity environment 4
Personnel safety, failure would have:
 No perceived risk to personnel 1
 Moderate risk to personnel mitigated by systems and equipment 2
 Significant risk to personnel 3
 High risk to personnel 4
Special considerations (where necessary):
1
Welded valve (not flanged), no access for maintenance – high pressure sour service. 2
3
4
Remarks: Total Score: 28
Criticality Rating: 1
Criticality Rating 1: Extremely critical Criticality Rating 2: Very critical
Criticality Rating 3: Critical Criticality Rating 4: Non-critical
CFDH/WCC/SGC** Originating Engineer Discipline/Process Process Owner

Engineer
Name: Name: Said Name: Mohammed Ali Name: George
N/A
Signature:
Signature: Said Signature: Mohammed Ali Signature: George
Date:
Site visit assessment: Yes/No Date: 31/05/2011 Date: 31/05/2011 Date: 31/05/2011
*Strikethrough, whichever is not applicable.
**For vendor assessment, CFDH/WCC/SGC to confirm the requirements (Yes or No) of visit to vendors premises.

Version: 1.0
3.3 Appendix C, Typical QA/QC Activities
Equipment and/or Materials* Tag No.:

Vendor details (in-case of pre-assessment/assessment):
Description:
Contract No.: Purchase Order No.:
Contractor: Vendor:
Criticality Rating
S. No. Requirements for Criticality Ratings
1 2 3 4
1 Review Vendor‘s competency prior to enquiry. To include technical capability, QA, QC and R R R R
HSE requirements.
2 Description of QA Management System for review at bid evaluation stage to include QA R R R R

and QC organization chart, details of any third party certification and outline quality plan.
3 Pre-award audit(s) by purchaser* at Vendor/Sub-Vendor works – alternatively review of R D D D
recent existing reports, if available.
4 Vendor to submit manufacturing Quality Control Plan (Inspection & Test Plan) prior to start R D D D
of production for review, approval and mark-up of any hold/witness points by the purchaser
5 Pre-production meetings – final agreement of QC plans R R D D

6 Approval of Sub-Vendors/requirement for copies of sub-orders. R D D D
7 Review of design documentation, drawings, calculations or procedures after award and R D D D
before manufacture.
8 Resident inspection by PDO or PDO appointed Third Party Inspector during all stages of R R D -
manufacture.
9 Independent inspection/design review by independent inspection authority D D - -
10 Audit(s) against QA Manual (or QA plan during manufacture). Audit schedule to be D D - -

developed based on manufacturing plan for one or more audits
11 Witnessing of specific stage QC hold points by PDO or PDO appointed TPI or specialist R R D -
engineer as identified in the QC Plan
12 Surveillance visits by purchaser* at Vendor/Sub-Vendor‘s works to review ongoing R R D -
inspection and test activities. Review of verifying records.
13 Witnessing of final performance/functional testing (Factory Acceptance Test) by PDO or R R D -
PDO appointed TPI or specialist engineer as identified in the QC Plan
14 Witnessing of final performance/functional testing (Site Acceptance Test) by PDO or PDO R D D -
appointed TPI or specialist engineer, following installation at site
15 Final inspection release by PDO or PDO appointed TPI including review of material R R D -
certification, manufacturing and inspection and test records.
16 Quality verification by random sampling - D D -

*Purchaser: Purchaser is PDO, in-case of direct procurement from Vendors or its Contactors
R = Requirement
D = Requirement dependent upon:
a) Any specific requirement included in the equipment and/or materials specification
b) Confidence in capability of Vendor / Supplier.
Total Score (from Appendix A of this document) for The Criticality Rating for this equipment and/or
this equipment and/or materials* is: materials* is:
*Strikethrough, whichever is not applicable

Version: 1.0
3.4 Appendix D, User Feedback Form
PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure
Any user who identifies an improvement, inaccuracy, error or ambiguity is

requested to notify the custodian so that appropriate action can be taken. The user
is requested to return this page fully completed, indicating precisely the
amendment(s) recommended.
Name:
Ref. Ind. Date:
Page Ref: Brief Description of Improvement and/or Change Required and Reasons
To: UEQ
Document Authority Date:


PR-1984 Criticality Rating Procedure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PR-1984 Criticality Rating Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.

Criticality Rating Procedure

Document Type Procedure

Discipline Quality Management

Owner UEQ, Quality Management Head

Issue Date 8 June 2011

Approval Record Sheet

Page 2 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

Page 3 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

Version No. Date Originator Scope / Remarks

iii Related Business Processes

iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF)

v Related International Standards

Page 4 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

Page 5 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

1.4 Distribution / Target audience

1.5 Review and improvement

1.6 Step-out and approval

Page 6 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

Terminology Definition (for the purpose of this document)

Purchaser will generally specify the technical requirements. An

The Criticality Rating shall be developed with facility efficiency and

Page 7 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

Bulk Equipment A large quantity of equipment and/or items, procured by or on

Abbreviation Description (for the purpose of this document)

Page 8 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

2 Criticality Rating Process

2.2 Roles and Responsibilities

Roles Responsibilities (for the purpose of this document)

Assistance from other disciplines shall be sought when the

The Originating Engineer shall forward the Criticality rating Data

The reason shall be clearly specified by the Discipline Engineer in

After approval, the Criticality Rating Data Sheet shall be forwarded

Note: The Criticality Rating shall be developed with facility efficiency

To ensure ongoing compliance with the agreed system, periodic

Page 9 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

CFDH/WCC/SGC CFDH/WCC/SGC confirmation of requirement (vendors premises

2.3 Criticality Rating Criteria

 Operations failure of equipment and/or materials

Total Score from

2.4 Rush Orders, Bulk Orders & Re-Supply

Page 10 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

2.5 Quality Assessment Levels for Prospective Vendors

2.6 Level-1 Quality Audits

2.7 Vendor Assessment

Page 11 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

3.1 Appendix A, Criticality Rating Data Sheet

*Strikethrough, whichever is not applicable.

Page 12 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

3.2 Appendix B, Example typical Criticality Rating Data Sheet

CFDH/WCC/SGC** Originating Engineer Discipline/Process Process Owner

Page 13 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

3.3 Appendix C, Typical QA/QC Activities

Equipment and/or Materials* Tag No.:

2 Description of QA Management System for review at bid evaluation stage to include QA R R R R

5 Pre-production meetings – final agreement of QC plans R R D D

10 Audit(s) against QA Manual (or QA plan during manufacture). Audit schedule to be D D - -

16 Quality verification by random sampling - D D -

*Strikethrough, whichever is not applicable

Page 14 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011

3.4 Appendix D, User Feedback Form

PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure

Any user who identifies an improvement, inaccuracy, error or ambiguity is

Page 15 PR-1984 – Criticality Rating Procedure Printed 08/06/2011