Supplier Process FMEA: Audit Summary (based on Fourth Edition FMEA Manual)

MY/Program
Name of Component(s), Sub-System(s) or System(s):
Part Number(s):
Responsible Supplier:
Responsible FCA US LLC Supplier Quality Engineer:
Name of Auditor:
Date Reviewed:
Date of PFMEA audited (Later of Original or Rev. Level):

Rating Detail Result Criteria

Header: "Yes" if all answers in section 1 are "Yes."
Non-Header sections (2 through 13): "No"___
"E/I"___ Count # of sections 2-13 "No" and # "E/I."
Overall Rating (place an "X" in the appropriate box) Header "Yes" overall and no more than three
sections "E/I" overall = "Green"
Neither "Green" nor "Red" criteria met =
"Yellow"
Six or more non-Header sections "No"
overall = "Red"

1 Header Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

1a Name of Vehicle(s)/Program(s) included? - -
1b Model Year of Program(s) included? - -
1c Name of Supplier included? - -
1d Part Number and Description included? - -
1e Core Team includes (at a minimum): FCA US LLC: Supplier Quality Engineer and
design-responsible Engineer. Supplier: Quality Engineer and Plant Mfg. Engineer?
Names and titles or area of responsibility are included? Note: Phone #'s - -
recommended, but not mandatory for this audit.
1f Key Date shown is the date source identified in Corporate Quality Management
System (CQMS) or P.O. issuance + 8 weeks, whichever is later (for new vehicle
programs), or does not exceed PPAP date (for programs already in production )? - -
Note: Contact FCA US LLC SQE, if required.
1g FMEA "(Orig.)" or latest "(Rev.)" date within past 60 days? - -
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes," check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No." - -

Note 1: "E/I" = only minor "E"xceptions or requirement "I"nconsistently applied (approx. 25% or less) and correction still required.
Note 2: Do not allow a "No" answer to one question (e.g., Detection ranking too low) result in a "No" answer to another related question (e.g., lack of
"Recommended Actions" or "Action Results"). Evaluate each question based only on their own merits.
2 General Requirements for all PFMEAs Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments
2a All operations included in the Process Flow Diagram have been included in the
PFMEA or a risk assessment was done and only medium/high risk operations have -
been included?
2b All process steps included in the Work Instructions have been included in the PFMEA
or a risk assessment was done and only medium/high risk steps have been included? -

2c A review of all Safety Office Campaign and Yard Hold records was done and all
relevant issues are included in the PFMEA? Notes: 1) FCA US LLC Supplier Quality
Engineer must be contacted to provide response. 2) If no relevant Campaign or Yard
Hold exists, answer "N/A".
2d A review of applicable FCA US LLC Master PFMEA (MPFMEA, formerly known as
Lessons Learned) was done and all relevant information is included in the Supplier's
PFMEA? Notes: 1) FCA US LLC Supplier Quality Engineer must be contacted to
provide response. 2) If no applicable MPFMEA exsits, answer "N/A".
2e All internal nonconformance over the past 6 months minimum caused by the existing
or a surrogate process have been included in the PFMEA? -
2f All external (customer) nonconformance over the past 12 months minimum caused by
the existing or a surrogate process have been included in the PFMEA? -

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -

If all answers "Yes," check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No." Otherwise,
-
"E/I."

3 Process Function/Requirements Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

3a Each operation is (briefly) described using a verb/noun (bend tube, apply primer,
pierce hole, etc.), rather than just numbered? Note: Noun not required if implied (i.e.,
"heat treat" alone vs. "heat treat bolt" is acceptable if there is only one component -
being heat treated).
3b Requirements of part/process included or implied (bend angle within design limits,
minimum primer thickness, hole diameter within spec. limits, flatness of surface within
spec. limits, length of tube 25mm. +/- 2, etc.)? Note: Including spec. values (25 mm. -
+/- 2) recommended, but not required for this audit.
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes," check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No." Otherwise,
-
"E/I."

564392835.xlsx 1
 MY/Program
Name of Component(s), Sub-System(s) or System(s):
Part Number(s):
Responsible Supplier:
Responsible FCA US LLC Supplier Quality Engineer:
Name of Auditor:
Date Reviewed:
Date of PFMEA audited (Later of Original or Rev. Level):

4 Potential Failure Modes Yes E/I No N/A

4a Failure Modes specific and written as a negative outcome of "Requirements" ("bend
angle too great" vs. "bend angle not to spec.", "hole dia. too big" vs. "hole dia.
incorrect", "surface too rough" vs. "surface roughness out of spec.", "primer too thin" -
vs. "primer thickness incorrect", "tube too long" vs. "tube length incorrect")?

4b All applicable Failure Modes from the DFMEA have been included in the PFMEA?
Notes: 1) If Failure Mode description is not acceptable, mark "N/A". 2) If no DFMEA
exists, mark "N/A".
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes" or "N/A" check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No."
-
Otherwise, "E/I."

5 Potential Effects of Failure Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

5a Effects written in terms of what customer (downstream process or end user) will
notice/experience ("unable to assemble" or "bsr" not just "scrap" or "FTC")? Note:
This is a description of a) what is the most severe effect if there were no controls from
operation being analyzed through end user (i.e., no inspection, poke yokes, vehicle
audits, etc.) or b) what is the most severe impact on the manufacturing process -
through entire supply chain to and including the OEM manufacturing facility (stop
shipment, decreased line speed, added manpower, etc.).

5b Customer Engineering provided input on Effects? -

5c Receiving manufacturing plant provided input on Effects? -
5d All applicable Effects from the DFMEA have been included in the PFMEA? Notes: 1)
If Effects descriptions not acceptable or do not apply, mark "N/A". 2) If no DFMEA
exists, mark "N/A".
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes" or "N/A" check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No."
-
Otherwise, "E/I."

6 Severity Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

6a Severity rankings not underrated based on AIAG Manual criteria? Note: Overrating
not recommended, but not requirement for this audit. -
6b Severity rankings identical for identical Potential Effects? -
6c All applicable Severity rankings from the DFMEA have been included in the PFMEA?
Notes: 1) If rankings not acceptable or do not apply, mark "N/A". 2) If no DFMEA
exists, mark "N/A."
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes" or "N/A" check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No."
-
Otherwise, "E/I."

7 Class Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

7a Safety classification symbol (FCA US LLC or Supplier) present for all Severity 9 or
10?
7b Critical/key classification symbol (FCA US LLC or Supplier) present for all Severity 8?

7c Classification symbol for Severity 7 or below for the same Effect on the DFMEA have
been included in the PFMEA? Note: If not acceptable or no DFMEA exists, mark,
"N/A."
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes" or "N/A" check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No."
-
Otherwise, "E/I."

8 Potential Causes Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

8a Descriptions specific? Note: 1) "incorrect set-up", "improper cooling", etc. must be
replaced by or include specific description of what was "incorrect" (temp. set too high)
or "improper" (time too short). 2) Replace "operator error" with a description of what
was done that was in error (e.g., "operator installed widget upside down.").

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -

If all answers "Yes" or "N/A" check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No."
-
Otherwise, "E/I."

564392835.xlsx 2
 MY/Program
Name of Component(s), Sub-System(s) or System(s):
Part Number(s):
Responsible Supplier:
Responsible FCA US LLC Supplier Quality Engineer:
Name of Auditor:
Date Reviewed:
Date of PFMEA audited (Later of Original or Rev. Level):

9 Occurrence Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

9a One Occurrence ranking for each cause (e.g., "worn/broken tool" must have two
separate rankings)? -
9b Internal (past 6 months minimum) and external (past 12 months minimum)
nonconformance data from the existing or a surrogate process were used to -
determine Occurrence rankings?
9c Occurrence rankings are 2 or greater unless Potential Cause has been error-proofed?

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -

If all answers "Yes," check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No." Otherwise,
-
"E/I."

10 Current Controls Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

10a Controls correctly identified as either Detection ("D") (Mistake Proof, 100% Visual
Insp., etc.) or Prevention ("P") (Visual Aids, Training, PM, etc.) controls? Note: 1)
separate "set-up" ("P") from "1st piece inspection" ("D"). 2) Error-Proofing is -
preventive (can't make), but may be listed as "P" or "D" or both.

10b Controls are adequately explained and do not just reference a document number?
Note: The description for Controls shall include where done (station #), how done
(go/no-go gage, variable gage, visual, poke-yoke with line lock-out, etc.), frequency -
and sample size (e.g., 100%).

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -

If all answers "Yes," check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No." Otherwise,
-
"E/I."

11 Detection Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

11a One Detection ranking for each Occurrence ranking? -
11b Detection ranking consistent with AIAG Manual? Note: Detection ranking is no better
than the best detection method (post-processing 100% visual inspection [8] + hourly
audit [9] = 8). Note: Overrating not recommended, but not requirement for this audit. -

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -

If all answers "Yes," check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No." Otherwise,
-
"E/I."

12 Recommended Actions & Responsibility Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

12a Do all Severity rankings of 9 or 10 with a Detection ranking >4 have a Recommended
Action which will lower the Detection? Note: "None" only to be used if Detection
ranking <5, with justification for "None" in this column recommended, but not
mandatory for this audit.
12b Do all Severity rankings of 8 with a Detection ranking >5 have a Recommended
Action which will lower the Detection? Note: "None" only to be used if Detection
ranking <6, with justification for "None" in this column recommended, but not
mandatory for this audit.
12c Severity 5 or more AND Occurrence 4 or more addressed with needed actions?
Notes: 1) "None" only to be used if "Current Controls (Prevention and Detection)"
deemed adequate. 2) Justification for "None" in this column recommended, but not
mandatory for this audit. 3) Actions which will not reduce Occ./Det. Rankings should
not be considered as "needed."
12d Recommended Actions are assigned to a specific person (not a department)?
12e Target Completion dates are shown and not past due (unless action has been taken
and noted as such)?
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes" or "N/A" check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No."
-
Otherwise, "E/I."

13 Action Results Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

13a "Actions Taken" column filled out with a clear description of what was done?
13b Re-rankings affected Occurrence and/or Detection (not Severity)?
13c Occurrence and/or Detection re-rankings consistent with AIAG Manual?
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results): - - - -
If all answers "Yes" or "N/A" check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No."
-
Otherwise, "E/I."
Rev. Description of Change Date
l See previous versions for history. 21-Jun-05
m Added "N/A" column. Expanded "Core Team" description. Added Note 2 and 3 and questions (shaded in blue) to be used by core 10-Mar-06
team in creation/development of PFMEA. "Implied" and additional examples added to 3a and 3b. References to DFMEA added.
Connection to internal/external nonconformance added. "Actions Taken" question added.
n Modified "Note 3" to clarify scope of italicized/shaded text. Replaced, "All Else Ok" with "Additional Comments." Corrected numbering 22-Jun-07
errors. "Overall Rating" section modified for clarity.
p Rating section clarified. Note added regarding process vs. part PFMEA Headers. Removed references to opinions in Powerway.com. 21-Jan-09
Replaced "Supplier Quality Specialist" title w/ "Supplier Quality Engineer." 1f description modified. Note 2 wording clarified. Note 3 (re:
internal Chrysler Audit) removed. "DCC" and "DCX" changed to "Chrysler." Blue shading and italics removed. 5a, 9c, 11b, 12a, 12b,
12c rewritten to comply with FMEA Manual Fourth Edition. 1c, 1f, 8a, 10a, 12e wording clarified. Headings for sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10,
12, 13 modified.
q Changed "Key Date" description in #1f. Removed "FMEA Date (orig.)" in #1g. Broke #2a to two lines separating requirements for 16-May-11
process flow diagram and work instructions. Added a note for Controls in #10b. Clarified wording in #12a and 12b. Corrected spelling
in "Additional Comments" in all sections.

r Clarify the wording in 1g, add line item 2d to including MPFMEA. 30-Jan-12
s Replaced "Chrysler" with FCA US LLC 27-Feb-15

564392835.xlsx 3
 Supplier Control Plan: Document Audit Summary Revised: October 28, 2011

MY/Program:
Name of Component, Sub-System or System:
Part Number(s):
Responsible Supplier:
Responsible Supplier Quality Engineer:
Name of Auditor:
Date Reviewed:
Date of Control Plan (Original or Rev. Level):

Overall Rating: "X"

Header "Yes" overall, no more than (3) non-
header lines rated as "E/I", and PFMEA rated
Header Overall: "Yes"______ "No"______
"Green"
Overall = "Green"
Neither "Green" nor "Red" criteria met =
Number of non-Header lines rated as "No":______
"Yellow"

(4) or more non-Header lines rated as "No"

Current PFMEA Rating: "Green" ______ "Yellow" ______ "Red" ______
Overall = "Red"

i Prerequisites: Yes No Auditor Comments

Is the Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) available for this audit?
Note: The PFMEA must be complete prior to Control Plan Audit.

Is the Process Flow available for this audit?

Note: The Process Flow must be complete prior to Control Plan Audit.

Are the most current design records (part print, GD&T sheets) available for this audit?
If one or more "No", check "No" here and STOP the audit until prerequisites are met.

Header Section: Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments

Is the Control Plan identified correctly for the current program launch phase (Prototype,
a Pre-Launch, Production)?
Note: Audit of the Prototype or Pre-Launch Control Plan is optional.
Is there a Control Plan Number? (For Identification Purposes)
b
Note: Supplier may use unique identification system
c Is the Part Number, Engineering Change Level included?
d Is the Part Name/Description included?
e Is the Supplier/Plant identified?
f Is the Supplier Code identified?
g Are Key Contact(s) with phone number included?
Is the Core Team identified with titles and telephone numbers?
h Note: Core Team shall include members from supplier's engineering, manufacturing,
quality and FCA US LLC Supplier Quality Engineer (SQE).
i Is the Original Revision date identified?
Is the Control Plan Revision within (15) days of applicable effective PFMEA revisions
j
and current engineering design level changes?
Additional Comments (not to impact audit results):
If all answers "Yes," check "Yes." If one or more "No," check "No." Otherwise, "E/I."

Note: "E/I" = only minor "E"xceptions or requirement "I"nconsistently applied (approx. 25% or less) and correction still required. It applies to all sections.

Operational Flow Columns:

- Part/Process Number
Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments
- Process Name/Operation Description
- Machine, Device, Jig, Tools for Manufacturing

Are all process steps listed in the Process Flow Diagram included in the Part/Process
Number column of the Control Plan?
1
Note: The Control Plan shall address all process steps from receiving inspection through
shipping.
Are all process steps listed in the PFMEA included in the Part/Process Number column
of the Control Plan?
2
Note: The Control Plan shall address all process steps from receiving inspection through
shipping.
3 Is the Process Name/Operation Description clearly stated as in the PFMEA?

Are the Machine, Device, Jig, Tools for mfg. listed correctly with identification numbers
for the individual processes?
4
Note: FCA US LLC Supplier Tool Record (STR) numbers listed in the Control Plan or in
a separate cross-reference sheet is recommended but not mandatory for this audit.

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results):

 Supplier Control Plan: Document Audit Summary Revised: October 28, 2011

MY/Program:
Name of Component, Sub-System or System:
Part Number(s):
Responsible Supplier:
Responsible Supplier Quality Engineer:
Name of Auditor:
Date Reviewed:
Date of Control Plan (Original or Rev. Level):

Characteristics Columns:
- No.
- Product Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments
- Process
- Special Characteristic Class

Are all features or properties of the part, component or assembly defined in the "Product
Characteristic" column described on design records (released drawings, GD&T, Part
5 Information Page, etc.)?
(Examples: Surface Finish, Paint Appearance, Meter Accuracy,
Presence of 4 holes, etc.)

Are all unique process characteristics identified within the "Process Characteristic"
6
column which are being controlled to reduce variation in assembly characteristics?

Is the "Special Characteristics Class" identified which indicates the level of importance
7 as defined in the design record?
(Ex. <S> Safety, <H> Homologation, <D> Diamond, Stoplight, or other supplier unique)

Are all product and process characteristics listed in the PFMEA also listed in the control
8
plan. ?

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results):

Methods Columns:
- Product/Process Specification Tolerance
- Evaluation Measurement Technique
- Sample Size Yes E/I No N/A Auditor Comments
- Sample Frequency
- Control Method
- Reaction Plan

Is the "Product/Process Specification/Tolerance" defined with the proper measurement

9
units included?
Are the appropriate measurement systems/equipment listed in the Evaluation
10 Measurement Technique column used to measure a specific product and process
characteristic?

Are the appropriate measurement systems/equipment ID's listed in the Evaluation

11
Measurement Technique column? (If applicable)

Do all Safety <S> characteristics have a (100%) primary measurement process and a
12
secondary quality measurement process identified?
Is the Control Method consistent with the Current Process Controls in the PFMEA?
13 Note: The Control Plan should cover all Current Process Controls in the PFMEA to
prevent or detect potential risks.

Is there a Reaction Plan specified with actions to be taken to prevent producing

nonconforming product?
14
(Ex. Is the reaction plan a description of the actions performed by operators on the
floor?)

Additional Comments (not to impact audit results):

Revision: Draft 3: 11/28/06, Hal Taylor comment updates.

Revision: Draft 4: 11/29/06 General Updates
Revision: Draft 5: 12/05/06, Blazevic comment updates.
Revision: Draft 6, 12/5/06, Renee DiCicco comments updates.
Revision: Draft 7, 12/6/06, Tom Norman comments updates.
Distribute to ASQP for Pilot 12/7/06
Revision: Draft 8, 01/18/2011, Major revision by Stanley Zhou, Jim Roach, David Wang, Tom Knapp and Jeff
Blussick.
Revision: 08/22/2011, General updates by Alyssa Geralds, Bryan C. Book II, Dave Benedict, Stanley Zhou.
Revision: 10/28/2011, Control Plan Audit Form joined PFMEA Audit Form as two tabs in one file.