Form No: HN-LP-04-F0003

Rev: 00
Effective Date: 10-Oct-2015

DATE OF
SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AUDIT:

SUPPLIER NAME: Supplier Contact Name:

Supplier Contact Postion:

ADDRESS / CITY /
STATE
Supplier Contact Phone:

FAX NUMBER: E-Mail Address

REASON FOR/TYPE AUDIT: QUALITY / DELIVERY ISSUES NEW BUSINESS

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOLLOW-UP ASSESSMENT

CUSTOMERS: Customer PPM (YTD Avge.)

Previous Year PPM

CERTIFICATION EXPIRY
ISO 9001 Certification CERTIFICATION EXPIRY DATE ISO 14001 Certification CERTIFICATION EXPIRY DATE Others Certification
DATE

YES Yes Yes

NO NO Type:

No

Has Certification ever been revoked? YES If Yes, State Reason:

NO Supplier has Liability Insurance? Y N

PRODUCT FOCUS FOR ASSESSMENT

FULL OPERATIONAL/QUALITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS (Optional Comments)

Major Strengths of Organization:

1)

2)

3)

Major Concerns of Organization:

1)
2)
3)

Level of Risk Observed Assessment Completed By:

0
TYPE COMPLETED: 0 Name:
Completed by: Group:
(enter total number of elements at each risk level) E-Mail:
Phone:
Approvals (if required by Group):
Quality Purchasing Director/Fremont
Name:
Title:
Signature:
 Form No: HN-LP-04-F0003
Rev: 00
Effective Date: 8-Sep-2015
NOTES:
1. If a particular element is currently "N/A" (not applicable) and there is no current risk to Unigen, enter score of "3" for that element and add a note of explanantion in the "Notes" section.
SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FORM 2. If a particular element is currently "N/A" but there is the potential of future risk to Unigen, enter score of "2" for that element and add a note of explanation in the "Notes" section.

General Organization and Management Score

Structure High Risk Moderate to High Risk Low to Moderate Risk Negligible to No Risk

No. ITEM 0 1 2 3 Score Risk Notes

No formal organization chart. Organization chart in place. Organization chart in place. Organization chart in place and is current
Is the Management structure and Resource allocation Critical functions open. Some functions open - critical positions filled Some functions open - critical positions filled All functions filled
1 3 Low
sufficient to support all necessary disciplines Plans to secure additional resources Succession planning in place

No formal job descriptions at any level Job descriptions for all production functions Job descriptions for all levels of the organization Job descriptions for all levels of the organization
Lack of evidence to support training Evidence of training for production functions Evidence of training at all levels Evidence of training at all levels
Responsibilities and authority are defined and evidence Training needs defined and tracked
2 3 Low
supports effective employee training Cross-training matrices available

No formal training or orientation process. No formal training or orientation process. Formal training or orientation process is in place Formal training or orientation process is in place
Does the supplier utilize part-time or temporary work Percentage of part time or temporary labor used is Percentage of part time or temporary labor used is for all temporary labor. for all temporary labor.
3 force? What is the training or orientation process for in excess of 30% between 20% and 30% Percentage of part time or temporary labor used is Percentage of part time or temporary labor used is 3 Low
temporary labor? between 20% and 30% below 20%

No formal continous improvement program Evidence of continuous improvement program Evidence of continuous improvement program Evidence of continuous improvement program
Management defines quality and performance Lack of key performance metrics Key operational metrics identified Key operational metrics identified Goals defined in Business Plan
objectives that promote Continuous Improvement. Key Evidence of regular management reviews Key operational metrics identified
4 Evidence of regular management reviews 3 Low
metrics should include all elements of the business and
establish target values. Evidence of Cost of Quality analysis & tracking

No evidence of communication to employees Some evidence of communication to employees Consistent evidence of communication Consistent evidence of communication
No formal suggestion program in place Evidence of customer requirements Key Customer performance indicators reviewed Key Customer and internal performance indicators
Does Management regularly communicate key communicated to employees regularly reviewed regularly
5 operational and performance information to all Employee suggestion program in place Employee suggestion program in place 3 Low
employees

No formal health & safety program in effect Safety program in place Safety program in place Evidence of strong health & safety program in
Lack of guarding and other safeties Inconsistent application of health & safety rules Generally consistent application of health & safety place, including regular safety audits
Workplace Health and Safety practices are in place Lack of cleanliness and organization Lack of cleanliness and organization rules Consistent application of health & safety rules
6 3 Low
and are consistently adhered to Plant is generally clean and organized Plant is clean and organized

Management has sufficient resources to effectively
manage Customer Requirements. Planning includes
7 3
sufficient resources that are trained and qualified and
meet planning requirements?
Does Management conduct regular internal process
8 audits (Layered Process Audits) that ensure
compliance to Customer requirements?
No awareness of customer requirements
No evidence of training
Lack of resources to support customer
No formal LPA process
Aware of customer requirements
Some level of support in place to support
No formal process
Some evidence of layered audits
Aware of customer requirements
Customer support availabel in language of
Customer and available for 24 hrs as needed
Formal process in place
Evidence of audits completed
Aware of customer requirements
Customer support availabel in language of
Customer and available for 24 hrs as needed
Low
Support available on all shifts and supplier
accounts for absenteeism
Formal process in place
Evidence of audits completed
Evidence of corrective action implemented 3 Low
Evidence of continuous improvement via LPA

No formal plan in place Plan in place but accounts only for loss of Plan in place Detailed business continuity and contingency
Does the supplier have a business continuity and manufacturing capability due to events at Plan provides for loss of manufacturing capability planning in place
contingency planning process in place to ensure manufacturing site and interruption of supply Alternate sources of supply identified
9 3 Low
continuity of supply in the event of natural disaster or No analysis of risk due to supply chain Plan not reviewed on an annual basis Supply chain risk identified and understood
supply interruption? No annual review Plan is reviewed annually, at minimum

Does the organization have a process, charter or No formal process No formal process or procedure Formal process in place to ensure global working Formal process in place to ensure global working
10 system to ensure the presence of acceptable global Unaware of requirements Evidence of internal systems to ensure health & conditions internally conditions internally and at supplier locations 3 Low
working conditions in all its operations? safety, competitive wages, working conditions etc

Total High Risk elements for General Organization and Management Structure = 0

Score
Advanced Product Planning High Risk Moderate to High Risk Low to Moderate Risk Negligible to No Risk

No. ITEM 0 1 2 3 Score Risk Notes

No formal or documented system in place Documented system in place Documented system in place Documented system in place
Evidence of sporadic reviews Evidence of systemic reviews Evidence of systemic reviews Evidence of systemic reviews
Does the Supplier have a process for managing No design or manufacturing feasibility studies Proper feasibilities completed Proper feasibilities completed Proper feasibilities completed
1 Advance Quality activity and sufficient resources to Evidence of cross functional teams Evidence of cross functional teams 3 Low
manage activity? Evidence of regular, scheduled reviews

No formal process in place No formal process Formal process in place Formal process in place
Some evidence of design or contract reviews Evidence of contract reviews Evidence of contract reviews
Process to ensure detailed Contract Review, including Evidence of review & understanding of Key/Critical Evidence of review & understanding of Key/Critical
Design and Capability review. characteristics characteristics
2 Evidence of Cross-functional teams 3 Low
Awareness and review of all division specific
requirement Evidence that division specific requirements are
understood and complied with

No records of program reviews Documented procedure for program reviews Documented procedure for program reviews Documented procedure for program reviews
Does this Supplier's APQP Plan include scheduled some records of completed program reviews Records of completed program reviews Records of completed program reviews
formal Design Reviews, Management Reviews, Inconsistent or no tracking of open issues Open issues tracked Reviews include Customer, as appropriate
3 3 Low
Program Reviews, etc with their Customer and Open issues tracked and closed in timely manner
internally?

No system or process to review packaging No review of packaging unless driven by the Process to ensure review and approvel of Process to ensure review and approval of
Does this Suppliers APQP process / system include requirements cusomer packaging packaging
4 3 Low
the review of the customers packaging requirements? No internal resources responsible Limited or no internal knowledge/resources Sufficient internal knowledge/resources Internal resources with sufficient knowledge
Customer approval obtained

531168459.xlsx

SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FORM
Does the Supplier conduct equipment validation and
5 3
performs run at rate in preparation for production?
Does the Supplier have a documented 'Safe-Launch'
6 plan? Does it include pre-first-shipment containment
and verification before any product is shipped?
Mistake-proofing and error-proofing used to control
critical characteristics and ensure product integrity? Is Focus is on detection and reliance on operators
7 prevention methodology driven by all appropriate data,
including part history, LPA results, TS/ISO results and
FMEA?
Does this Suppliers Process flow diagram match the
8 including all inspection points
actual production flow laid out for this facility?
Does this Suppliers FMEA's and Control Plan's match
9 Evidence of periodic reviews
the Process Flow diagram?
Does the FMEA include critical and/or significant
10 characteristics as well as all supplier identified Key
Characteristics?
Are Supplier FMEA's risk numbers for severity,
11 occurrence, and detection based on historical /
statistical data?
Are the mistake proofing opportunities initiated to
12
reduce high RPN numbers noted on the control Plan?
Does the control plan identify all gauges and test
13 equipment required for inspection? Including test
frequency?
Does the supplier have a system to manage and track
14
all sub-tier advance planning activity?
Does the Supplier have a process to track PPAP
15
performance with the Customer and from Suppliers?
Does this Supplier have a process / system in place to
16 ensure that all design requirements / engineering
specifications are communicated to their supply base?
Is there a process to ensure Tier Supplier product is
controlled to ensure compliance? Are all requirements characteristics
17
for safety critical characteristics clearly communicated
to all sub-suppliers?
Quality
No. ITEM
Is this Supplier ISO or TS registered ? Are they current Supplier has no certifications at present
with their surveillance audit schedule?
1 No current open corrective actions from last audit
Is this Supplier current to their internal audit schedule
2 including corrective actions for all findings?
Are Work Instructions for all employees affecting
3 product quality, including for repair and re-work
operations available and posted?
NOTES:
1. If a particular element is currently "N/A" (not applicable) and there is no current risk to Unigen, enter score of "3" for that element and add a note of explanantion in the "Notes" section.
2. If a particular element is currently "N/A" but there is the potential of future risk to Unigen, enter score of "2" for that element and add a note of explanation in the "Notes" section.
No system or process to validate equipment Evidence of equipment validation prior to start of
No evidence of run at rate studies production
No evidence or limited evidence of run at rate
studies to verify meeting capacity requirements
No system to ensure verification of material at Evidence of some containment in place, but only
start of program launch on a limited basis
Supplier only implements containment when
directed by the Customer
No focus on mistake proofing or error prevention Heavy reliance on operators, but some focus on
automated error detection
Process Flow Diagram and actual production flow Process flow and manufacturing basically match,
do not match but some out of sequence steps noted
No linkage between FMEA's, Control Plans and Process Flow and Process Control Plan match,
Process Flows but no obvious link to FMEA's
No tracking of critical and special characteristics Criticial characteristics are tracked
Control is focussed on product only, not process
Total or significant lack of risk numbers on Risk numbers assigned on FMEA's, but no evident Risk numbers assigned on FMEA's
FMEA's linkage to customer requirements
No linkage between RPN's and mistake proofing Evidence of improvements to mistake proofing,
but no visible link to RPN's
No reference to gauges, test equipment or test Control plans identify required gauging, test
frequency on control plans equipment and frequencies
Only minor exceptions noted
No system in place to track supplier activities Supplier activities are tracked
Regular review of supplier activities
No tracking system in place System in place to track Customer PPAP
submissions
Evidence of some PPAP samples available
No documented system of communication in place Process in place to communicate design
requirements and engineering specifications to
suppliers
Minor exceptions noted
No documented system to qualify suppliers No documented system to qualify suppliers
No documented system to communicate critical System in place to communicate critical
characteristics to suppliers
High Risk Moderate to High Risk
0 1
Supplier has minimum of ISO certification
Lacks TS/VDA certification
No formal internal schedule of review No formal schedule of review
Some evidence of completed internal audits
No work or operator instructions posted, or Work instructions posted or available for operators Work instructions posted or readily available
significant lack of instructions No rework/repair instructions
Evidence of equipment validation prior to start of Process to ensure equipment validation
production
Evidence suggests run at rate conducted in most Evidence of customer sign-off/approvals
situations, but lack of formal process
Product containment plan is defined as part of
program launch process
Production control plans used - no pre-launch
plans
Significant focus on error prevention
High use of mistake proofing in manufacturing
process
Process flow and manufacturing process match
but inspection points out of sequence
Process Flow and Process Control Plan match
and evident match to FMEA's
Critical/Special characteristics tracked consistently Critical/Special characteristics tracked consistently
on FMEA, PCP, PFD, Instructions etc.
Required statistical controls in place
Risk numbers linked to customer requirements
Evidence of link between addition of mistake
proofing and reduction plan for RPN's
Control plans identify required gauging, test
equipment and frequencies
No visible exceptions noted
Supplier activities are tracked
Regular review of supplier activities
Supplier readiness is reviewed with internal review
meetings
System in place to track Customer PPAP
submissions
Evidence of all PPAP samples available
Process in place to communicate design
requirements and engineering specifications to
suppliers
No exceptions noted
Documented system to qualify suppliers
System in place to communicate critical
characteristics to suppliers
Total High Risk elements for Advance Product Planning =
Score
Low to Moderate Risk
2 3
Supplier has all applicable certifications, including All required certifications are current, including
ISO, TS, VDA, CQI - as applicable
Formal schedule of review over 12 month period
Evidence of audits completed on schedule
Repair/rework instructions posted or available
Instructions do not match level of Control Plans
531168459.xlsx
Form No: HN-LP-04-F0003
Rev: 00
Effective Date: 8-Sep-2015
Records verify completion of run at rate studies
Low
Product containment plan is defined as part of
program launch process
Pre-launch control plans in place 3 Low
Failure modes analyzed and corrective action
implemented
Significant focus on error prevention
High use of mistake proofing in manufacturing
process
3 Low
Mistake proofing driven by FMEA and RPN
reduction
Process flow diagram matches actual production
flow of materials and manufacturing process,
3 Low
Process Flow and Process Control Plan match
and evident match to FMEA's
3 Low
on FMEA, PCP, PFD, Instructions etc.
Required statistical controls in place
3 Low
Control is on both product and process
Risk numbers assigned on FMEA's
Risk numbers linked to customer requirements
Evidence that risk numbers are revised, based on 3 Low
historical or statistical data, or issues
Evidence of link between addition of mistake
proofing and reduction plan for RPN's
Focus on RPN reduction for both product and 3 Low
process
Control plans identify required gauging, test
equipment and frequencies
No visible exceptions noted
3 Low
Frequencies are adjusted based on issues and
historical data
Supplier activities are tracked
Regular review of supplier activities
Supplier readiness is reviewed with internal review
meetings
3 Low
Key supplier events & timing managed with R/Y/G
risk status
System in place to track Customer and supplier
PPAP submissions
Evidence of all PPAP samples available
3 Low
PPAP issues properly addressed
Process in place to communicate design
requirements and engineering specifications to
suppliers
3 Low
Suppliers sign off/acknowledge requirements
No exceptions noted
Documented system to qualify suppliers
System in place to communicate critical
characteristics to suppliers
Records of supplier audits 3 Low
Records of design/characteristic reviews
0
Negligible to No Risk
Score Risk Notes
ISO, TS, VDA, CQI etc.
3 Low
Formal schedule of review over 12 month period
Evidence of audits completed on schedule 3 Low
All corrective actions completed on time
Work instructions posted or readily available
Repair/rework instructions posted or available 3 Low
Instructions match level of Control Plans
 Form No: HN-LP-04-F0003
Rev: 00
Effective Date: 8-Sep-2015
NOTES:
1. If a particular element is currently "N/A" (not applicable) and there is no current risk to Unigen, enter score of "3" for that element and add a note of explanantion in the "Notes" section.
SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FORM 2. If a particular element is currently "N/A" but there is the potential of future risk to Unigen, enter score of "2" for that element and add a note of explanation in the "Notes" section.

Are controls in place to verify process start up and job No start up procedures defines Start up process defined Start up process defined Start up process defined
change-over? No evidence of start up controls - such as First-off samples available at all appropriate First-off samples available at all appropriate First-off samples available at all appropriate
4 firstpiece, containment etc. operations - some exceptions noted operations - no exceptions noted operations 3 Low
Evidence of first piece approval/signature
Noticeable lack of formal process Documented procedure Documented procedure Documented, formal problem resolution process
Focus only on external issues Issues addressed in timely manner Timely response to internal & external issues that includes:
Multiple open issues and/or late responses Lack cross-functional approach Cross functional approach used - both external (customer) and internal issues
No cross-functional approach - cross-functional team approach
- thorough 8D/5 Why process in place
Does the Supplier have an effective Problem - timely response to all issues
Resolution process? Does the system address - on time response is a KPI
customer and internal issues? Does the process - corrective action drives update to all related
5 ensure review and necessary update of the applicable documents 3 Low
PFMEA? Does the supplier exit containment only after - Evidence of PFMEA review/update for all
customer approval? corrective actions, or at least annually if no
corrective actions issued
- Evidence that customer approval obtained prior
to cessation of containment activity

Does this Supplier have a process / system to identify Suspect material not clearly identified Suspect material identified but not properly Suspect material clearly identified & segregated All suspect/defective material clearly marked
and segregate non-conforming material at each phase Suspect material at production cells, with high segregated Effective containment process internally, at Suspect material segregated in secure area
of the production process? potential for mix Some evidence of containment in place suppliers and at customer(s) Suspect material clearly accounted for, with
6 Lack of effective containment process Lack of or poor system to verify final disposition of No evidence of signatures detailing disposition appropriate disposition and signatures 3 Low
all suspect material and/or lack of secure containment area Procedures define proper containment activities
internally, at suppliers and at customer(s)

Lack of or poorly managed system Formal, but manual system in place Formal automated system in place Formal automated system in place
Multiple fixtures/gages with outdated calibration Very few, or no fixtures/gages past due System generates reminders of calibration due System generates reminders of calibration due
Is there a system to identify, qualify and control Gages/fixtures not referenced on Control Plans Fixtures and gages referenced on control plans No evidence of past due calibrations No evidence of past due calibrations
7 3 Low
Measuring and Test Equipment? Fixtures/gages referenced in control plans Fixtures/gages referenced in control plans
Evidence of effective GR&R on all gages Effective MSA system in place

Lack of instructions Gage instructions in place, as required Operator gage instruction in place Operator gage instruction in place
Are Operators trained and qualified for any required Lack of operator training documentation Evidence of some training records Operator training records available and current Operator training records available and current
measurement and tests, including use of appropriate Missing, or no SPC where required Some use of SPC, but possibly inconsistent SPC data current, where required SPC data current, where required
8 statistical techniques? Are there posted instructions Re-work gage instructions missing or not posted Adequate re-work gage instructions available at all 3 Low
detailing inspection, test, SPC, work requirements and production and re-work stations
re-work instructions at every station?

Are all inspection gauges and fixtures stored in a Evidence of gages/fixtures inappropriately stored Storage has been designated but is insufficient Adequate storage for gages/fixtures Dedicated storage for gages/fixtures, when not in
9 manner that protects them from environmental and / or and/or susceptible to damage Medium to high potential for damage Some, but minimal opportunity for damage use 3 Low
handling / storage damage? No designated storage Storage prevents damage or abuse
Does the supplier have sufficient internal capability and Significant lack of internal capability Sufficient resources to monitor most dimensional Internal resources can support dimensional and Internal resources can support dimensional,
equipment to ensure customer performance and High reliance on external sources and material specifications material requirements material and performance requirements
10 specification criteria can be met? Some reliance on external sources Some performance or specialty requirements are Only specialty requirements are sourced 3 Low
sourced externally externally

Does the supplier have an effective method of No existing process to qualify personnel Lighting is adequate in most areas of visual Lighting is adequate in all stations requiring visual Lighting is adequate in all stations requiring visual
qualifying visual inspection personnel for clarity of conducting visual inspections. Lighting insufficient inspection but no formal qualifications for visual or inspections. inspections.
11 vision and accuracy of color, where required? Is in one or more areas of inspection color capability of personnel conducting Inspection personnel undergo some form of Formal system in place to quality and maintain 3 Low
lighting adequate in all visual inspection areas? inspections qualification for visual acuity. visual and color perception of inspectors.

Does this Supplier have a process / system to measure No formal system in place Some customer performance measures in place System in place to track external quality Documented system in place to measure external
and track external quality performance with their Some customers have no performance data All customers are tracked but, some customer quality
customers? performance data not current Performance data is current and includes
12 Some corrective actions not addressed in timely appropriate PPM and incident data, at minimum 3 Low
manner Corrective actions in place to address under
performance issues

Does the supplier have a record retention process that No formal document retention system Document retention system in place
ensures all necessary test, inspection and safety Records not easily retrievable
critical records are retained for period as defined by the No system to ensure timely destruction of
13 Customer? documents, as per legal or customer requirements
Records not protected from damage
Document retention system in place
Records easily retrievable
No system to ensure timely destruction of
documents, as per legal or customer requirements
Records protected from damage
Document retention system in place
Documents are protected from damage and
readily accessible
Process ensures destruction as per schedule 3 Low
Records include both paper and data records

Has this Supplier identified all of the special processes No, or minimal control over out-sourced processes Sub-tier suppliers have at least partial evaluation Sub-tier suppliers evaluated prior to sourcing Sub-tier suppliers are evaluated prior to sourcing
that will be required? Will any of these special prior to sourcing Performance of sub-tiers monitored regularly Performance of sub-tiers monitored regularly
14 processes require outsourcing? Are additional controls No regular performance reviews No detailed records of review of requirements Record of detailed review of requirements with 3 Low
in place to manage outsources services? prior to sourcing sub-tier suppliers, prior to sourcing

Total High Risk elements for Quality = 0

Score
Materials and Logistics High Risk Moderate to High Risk Low to Moderate Risk Negligible to No Risk

No. ITEM 0 1 2 3 Score Risk Notes

No formal system to ensure receipt/validity of System in place to receive customer orders, but System in place to receive and verify customer System in place to receive and verify customer
Does the Supplier have a documented system to customer releases no verified back up system orders orders
ensure receipt of Customer schedules and No regular tracking of delivery performance Regular monitoring of delivery performance Regular monitoring of delivery performance
1 Back up system for receiving orders but system is Back up system for receiving orders and system is 3 Low
requirements?
not tested regularly tested regularly

Does the supplier have a formal process to plan Poor inventory management system Material flow sufficient, from receiving through Good material flow throughout manufacturing Good material flow throughout manufacturing
material flow into and through the plant? Are materials No apparent flow to material movement manufacturing and shipping facility - no apparent bottlenecks facility - no apparent bottlenecks
and components stored, packaged and transported so High risk of damage to materials & components Evidence ofsome material congestion in places Material identified at all stages of the process Material identified at all stages of the process
2 as to protect them from dirt and damage? No apparent FIFO System in place to monitor inventory levels System in place to monitor inventory levels 3 Low
Potential for material damage Lacking evidence of effective FIFO Plans in place to reduce inventory
Evidence of effective FIFO in place

531168459.xlsx
 Form No: HN-LP-04-F0003
Rev: 00
Effective Date: 8-Sep-2015
NOTES:
1. If a particular element is currently "N/A" (not applicable) and there is no current risk to Unigen, enter score of "3" for that element and add a note of explanantion in the "Notes" section.
SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FORM 2. If a particular element is currently "N/A" but there is the potential of future risk to Unigen, enter score of "2" for that element and add a note of explanation in the "Notes" section.

Does this Supplier have a material lot traceability No, or very minimal traceability evident Traceability on finished product but lacking on raw Full material traceability on raw and finished Full material traceability on raw and finished
system? materials and components materials materials
Maximum period of traceability is >8 hours, or one Maximum period of traceability is <8 hours, or one
3 3 Low
shift shift
Traceability indicated on shipping labels Traceability indicated on shipping labels

Does the supplier have a system / process to validate No verification of materials prior to shipping Validation prior to shipping is limited to verification System in place to verify shipments, but limited to: System in place to verify each customer shipment
the contents, label accuracy, and quantities of all of part number, only - part number for:
containers shipped? - part quantity - quantity
4 - correct part 3 Low
- proper labelling
- part damage

Is there a process to manage the material ordering No apparent link between customer orders and Raw materials/components inventories tracked Raw materials/components tied to customer Raw materials/components tied to customer
activity to ensure an adequate supply of raw material / orders/receipts of purchased materials and ordered according to min/max values releases releases
lower level components are available to meet No linkage to customer orders or releases Storage sufficient to prevent damage or mixing Storage sufficient to prevent damage or mixing
5 production requirements? Are all delivered and/or System in place to provide warning for low System in place to provide warning for low 3 Low
surplus materials stored in packaging and conditions inventories inventories
so as to prevent damage or mix? Customers proactively notified of order concerns

Does this Supplier have processes / systems in place No evidence of min/max values set Min and max values set on inventory Min and max values set on inventory Min and max values set on inventory
to confirm and manage inventory levels? No regular cycle or inventory counts No inventory counts conducted on regular basis Inventory counts conducted on regular basis Inventory counts conducted on regular basis
6 Inventory turns are at acceptable level, or as 3 Low
defined in the business plan
Does the supplier utilize off-site warehouses? If so, is Off-site warehouses used Off-site warehouses used No off-site warehouse used, or No off-site warehouse used, or
inventory tracked? Are cycle counts conducted? No visible controls in place Regular counts of inventory received, but not Warehouse used but regular inventory counts Warehouse used but regular inventory counts
7 validated regularly monitored monitored 3 Low
Warehouse protects agains damage or loss Inventory validated through periodic count
Warehouse protects agains damage or loss
Does the Supplier utilize Advanced Shipping Notice's Supplier does not issue ASN on regular basis, or Supplier almost always issues ASN but at times in Supplier issues ASN for all shipments Supplier issues ASN for all shipments
(ASN's)? Does the supplier verify the ASN to the Bill of issues in excess of 30 minutes prior to shipment excess of 30 minutes prior to shipment ASN issued at maximum of 30 minutes prior to ASN issued at maximum of 30 minutes prior to
8 Lading, and the customers order? shipment shipment 3 Low
Process in place to verify ASN to Bill of Lading to
Customer order

Total High Risk elements for Materials& Logistics = 0

Score
Facilities & Tooling
High Risk Moderate to High Risk Low to Moderate Risk Negligible to No Risk

No. ITEM 0 1 2 3 Score Risk Notes

Does this supplier have a process / system to recertify No formal process or procedure in place Documented system to qualify tool/fixture repairs Documented system to qualify tool/fixture repairs Documented system to qualify tool/fixture repairs
1 a tool after repair but before production is scheduled? No formal sign off procedure System ensures sign off by qualified personnel System ensures sign off by qualified personnel 3 Low
System ties in to production first-off procedure
Does the supplier have a tooling database to track and No database or formal tracking system for tools Adequate tracking system for tooling Adequate tracking system for tooling Adequate tracking system for tooling
manage tooling? Missing asset tags on tools Customer ownership validated via asset tags Customer ownership validated via asset tags
Tool maintenance records missing or not available Tool maintenance records maintained and Proper storage location for tooling not in
2 at all available for review production 3 Low
Tool maintenance records maintained and
available for review
Is all Tooling being stored in a location that is protected Lack of designated storage for tooling Designated storage for tooling Designated storage for tooling Designated storage for tooling
from environmental / handling damage? Storage allows for damage from environment or Storage protects against damage from Storage protects against damage from
3 handling environment or handling environment or handling 3 Low
Storage in an area readily accessible
Does the supplier conduct a Tooling inventory and No regular inventory Regular inventory completed at a prescribed Regular inventory completed at a prescribed Regular inventory completed at a prescribed
compare the results against the Tooling database? frequency frequency frequency
4 Inventory matched to customer asset records Inventory matched to customer asset records 3 Low
Tooling engineering levels validated annually, as
required
Is there a system to track new tooling on order to No formal review process in place Documented system to track tooling orders Documented system to track tooling orders Documented system to track tooling orders
support Customer schedules and targeted Minimal evidence of customer updates Tooling tracked to implementation timeline Monitored as part of APQP
5 implementation dates? Evidence of customer updates Customer updated on potential issues 3 Low

Does the supplier have a formal Preventive
Maintenance management system at this facility?
Does it include all production equipment, Tooling and
6 supporting fixtures? Can it track specific Tools? Is
maintenance completed per schedule?
No formal preventive maintenance plan in place
Preventive maintenance in place
Maintenance driven by tooling/equipment
downtime
Maintenance includes production tooling,
equipment and fixtures
Evidence of an effective preventive maintenance Evidence of TPM (Total Productive Maintenance)
program in place
Records validate maintenance occurs as
scheduled 3 Low

Very little or no knowledge of capacity available Supplier has knowledge of available capacity Supplier has knowledge of available capacity Supplier has knowledge of available capacity
Capacity forecast driven by high level factors such Evidence of current capacity studies on equipment Evidence of current capacity studies on equipment
as floor space, total hours available OEE studies available for review
Does the Supplier have a process to monitor tooling
7 No detail on equipment capacity Sufficient resource planning is evident 3 Low
and equipment capacities?

Total High Risk elements for Facilities & Tooling = 0

Score
Purchasing
High Risk Moderate to High Risk Low to Moderate Risk Negligible to No Risk

No. ITEM 0 1 2 3 Score Risk Notes

531168459.xlsx
 Form No: HN-LP-04-F0003
Rev: 00
Effective Date: 8-Sep-2015
NOTES:
1. If a particular element is currently "N/A" (not applicable) and there is no current risk to Unigen, enter score of "3" for that element and add a note of explanantion in the "Notes" section.
SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FORM 2. If a particular element is currently "N/A" but there is the potential of future risk to Unigen, enter score of "2" for that element and add a note of explanation in the "Notes" section.

Supplier lacks internal expertise on product or
Supplier capability/competency for existing and quoted process technology to support UHAN business
1 UHAN business. UHAN represents >50% of supplier's overall
business
Supplier has full technical capability to support
UHAN business
UHAN represents >35% but <50% of supplier's
overall business
Supplier has full technical capability to support
UHAN business
Some secondary processing out-sourced
UHAN represents >35% but <50% of supplier's
overall business
Supplier has full technical capability to support
UHAN business
No out-sourcing of secondary processing 3 Low
UHAN represents <35% of supplier's overall
business

Does UNIGEN face undue risk by entering / increasing Supplier is a direct competitor to UHAN, with Supplier is a direct competitor to UHAN, but with Supplier is competitor with UHAN, but with Supplier does not compete with UHAN
business with this Supplier as a result of the share of same OE Customer base different OE Customer base different technology and/or products Supplier is not an OE supplier
2 business they do with other OEMs? 3 Low

How does this Supplier communicate customer No formal process in place Formal RFQ/SOW sent to suppliers Formal RFQ/SOW sent to suppliers Formal RFQ/SOW sent to suppliers
requirements (drawings, specifications, etc) to their Primary method of communication is verbal Suppliers asked to sign off on feasibility Suppliers asked to sign off on feasibility
3 suppliers during the quoting process? Only qualified/approved suppliers are used 3 Low

Is this Supplier's facility owned or leased? Is it Inadequate coverage for damage or loss Facility on long-term lease Facility on long-term lease Facility is owned
adequately protected from catastrophic loss due to No coverage on customer owned tooling or Some insurance but likely inadequate to cover full Proof available to verify adequate insurance Proof available to verify adequate insurance
4 Fire, Flood, etc? Does the insurance coverage include equipment loss Customer owned capital insured (Bailee Bond) Customer owned capital insured (Bailee Bond) 3 Low
customer owned goods and/or equipment?

Does this Supplier have a process / procedure for the No formal procedure for selection of suppliers Procedure defines selection of supplier Procedure defines selection of supplier Procedure defines selection of supplier
selection, qualification, approval, and management of No, or minimal tracking of supplier performance Supplier performance is measured/monitored Supplier assessments conducted Supplier assessments conducted
5 their supply base? No evident signs of supplier development Supplier performance is measured/monitored Supplier performance is measured/monitored 3 Low
Minimal supplier development activity Adequate resources to manage supply base
Evidence of supplier development activity
Does this Supplier have a process / system in place to No formal system in place No formal system in place Formal system in place Formal system in place
disqualify their suppliers based on performance? Supplier performance not monitored or, Supplier performance monitored, but no reaction Supplier performance monitored Supplier performance monitored
No reaction to poor supplier performance to poor performance Development activities evident with poor Development activities evident with poor
6 performing suppliers performing suppliers 3 Low
Process in place to prevent new business to poor
performing suppliers

Total High Risk elements for Purchasing = 0

Score
Operations
High Risk Moderate to High Risk Low to Moderate Risk Negligible to No Risk

No. ITEM 0 1 2 3 Score Risk Notes

From an overall perspective, is this Suppliers facility Poor housekeeping practices Some areas of good housekeeping, but very Formal 5S program and review process in place Formal 5S program and review process in place
clean, well maintained and organized both inside and No evidence of 5S principles in place sporadic Majority of manufacturing area is clean and Lean manufacturing program in place
outside? Is there a formal 5S and lean manufacturing Risk to employees health & safety Some risk to employees health & safety organized All areas clean and organized, including:
process in place? Opportunity for improvement in office areas, or - manufacturing
1 shipping or warehouse areas - office areas 3 Low
Minor risk to employee health & safety - shipping & receiving and warehouse
- maintenance and lab areas (if applicable)
No obvious risk to employee health & safety

Does this Supplier have a process / system to track No formal process to track scheduled or Scheduled downtime tracked Scheduled and unscheduled downtime is tracked Scheduled and unscheduled downtime is tracked
and manage scheduled and unscheduled downtime for unscheduled downtime Lack of detailed tracking of unscheduled downtime Lack of documented response to address Evidence of documented response to address and
this facility? unscheduled downtime reduce unscheduled downtime
2 Customer not notified if downtime anticipated to Customer notified if downtime anticipated to affect 3 Low
affect Customer Customer

Does this Supplier have documented / published No formal process in place to track performance Key measurables are tracked Key measurables are tracked Key measurables are tracked
performance goals, Key Performance Metrics, for this of key measurables and drive improvement Lack of formal plans to drive improvement Formal plans in place to drive improvement Formal plans in place to drive improvement
3 facility? How is the supplier performing to these goals? Supplier is generally meeting improvement targets 3 Low

Does this Supplier have an up-to-date plant layout that No layout or mapping of production flow, available Plant layout available Plant layout available Plant layout available
shows current product flow? Current production flow differs from existing plant Current layout matches existing production flow Current layout matches existing production flow
4 layout System in place to ensure Customer notified when 3 Low
production process/flow is changed
Is there a process to address absenteeism? No formal tracking of absenteeism Absenteeism is tracked to a defined target Absenteeism is tracked to a defined target Absenteeism is tracked to a defined target
Lack of documented plans to address Documented plans to address absenteeism above Documented plans to address absenteeism above
5 absenteeism above target target target 3 Low
Evidence of sufficient cross-training to prevent
absenteeism presenting risk to customer
Does this Supplier have a process / system in place to No formal training program Evidence of training for new employees Evidence of training program for new employees Evidence of training program for new employees
train new employees? Training includes health and safety training Training includes health and safety training Training includes health and safety training
Training is sufficient to ensure job requirements Training is sufficient to ensure job requirements Training is sufficient to ensure job requirements
can be met can be met can be met
6 Evidence of cross-training Evidence of cross-training 3 Low
Training effectiveness is monitored
Evidence of training needs analysis on regular
basis

Total High Risk elements for Operations = 0

Score
Engineering
High Risk Moderate to High Risk Low to Moderate Risk Negligible to No Risk

No. ITEM 0 1 2 3 Score Risk Notes

Does this Supplier have the latest Customer drawings No formal tracking system in place Informal or manual system in place Formal system in place to track drawing and Formal system in place to track drawing and
and specifications for all parts in the program? Does Informal system in place but high potential for System is fairly robust with minimal opportunity for specification levels specification levels
the system ensure drawing/specifications are at the obsolete drawings/specifications in the system mistakes All appropriate documentation and control plans All appropriate documentation and control plans
1 latest level? reference latest drawings available reference latest drawings available 3 Low
System ensures annual review/validation with
customer

531168459.xlsx

SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FORM
Form No: HN-LP-04-F0003
Rev: 00
Effective Date: 8-Sep-2015
NOTES:
1. If a particular element is currently "N/A" (not applicable) and there is no current risk to Unigen, enter score of "3" for that element and add a note of explanantion in the "Notes" section.
2. If a particular element is currently "N/A" but there is the potential of future risk to Unigen, enter score of "2" for that element and add a note of explanation in the "Notes" section.

Is the electronic design program (software) used by the Supplier unable to communicate engineering data, Supplier has system to communicate engineering Supplier has system to communicate engineering Supplier has system to communicate engineering
supplier (with design / Tool design responsibilities) internally data data data
2 appropriate and compatible with UHAN systems? Majority of service is out sourced to a 3rd party Majority of communication is via interna systems All communication is via internal systems 3 Low
Portion of service is out sourced to a 3rd party
Does this supplier have a system to manage and track No formal system in place, or informal system Formal system in place Formal system in place Formal system in place
Engineering Changes and Deviations? allowing high chance of error Verification that drawings/specifications at latest Verification that drawings/specifications at latest Verification that drawings/specifications at latest
level level level
Change control managed by single individual or Change control managed by cross functional team Change control managed by cross functional team
department Effective tracking system in place to ensure all
changes are addressed, including all
3 documentation 3 Low
Evidence of sign off by cross functional team

3 0

531168459.xlsx