Revision Date User Notes: Oshkosh Corporation Classification - Restricted

Revision Date User Notes Oshkosh Corporation Classification - Restricted #_x000D_
1.6 2/28/2014 Andrea Krueger Added Revisions History Tab, Updated PSW to unclude IPS specific information for Level 1, Added
PRINT NOTES - Performance Tests Tab and updated PRINT NOTES - Welding with attaching copies
of WPS/PQR; finished update of tab footers
Updated PPAP Requirements tab with N/R information and * specific reqs. Removed buyer Number
from PSW; Added conditional formatting to the dimensional tab, split the paint tab into 2 tabs (paint
and plating) & Appearance Approval Tab update, added "Format for example only; Supplier created
1.7 1/31/2015 Andrea Krueger templates may be used" for any example template in the workbook
Added Section J labeling tab and PPAP requirements; Updates to PSW materials, reporting, paint
worksheet added surface profile, weld worksheet added piece 1-3, replaced ratings matrix for S,O,D,
added criticality matrix, added QC-112 PPAP check list, added QC-116 COTS exceptions form,
Andrea Krueger / added QC-112 to PPAP requirements matrix and PSW check boxes, capability worksheet replaced
1.8 4/30/2017 Scott Ball with web link, DFMEA & PFMEA worksheets replaced.
Revised the PSW citation to D.32 for the SSG. Removed QC-116 COTS exception form. Added C of
C Template. Revised QC-112 to include castings section and heading information automatic fill.
1.9 2/12/2018 Scott Ball Revised the Detection ratings scale.
Revised the QC-112 check list; COTS, Armor. Revised the Print Notes- Plating worksheet, C of C
2.0 4/8/2019 Scott Ball changed to Excel format. Revised Print Notes- Paint worksheet to include ARL # and cyclical testing
PSW- included QC-112 in description for level 3 requirement, C of C Template: added supplier PN,
Scott Ball / Andrea added "evidence of commerciality…", added tab for UID TRACEABILITY LABEL, Added to the paint
2.1 8/4/2020 Krueger and plating worksheet, revised QC-112 checklist C of C section, updated Oshkosh Logo
Oshkosh Corporation Classification - Restricted #_x000D_
Production Part Approval Process (PPAP)
Revision 2.1
October 1, 2020
"One System…One Team...One Oshkosh”

PPAP INTRODUCTION
PPAP packages are expected to be received by Oshkosh Corporation by the date assigned by Oshkosh Corporation Designee. If for any
reason you cannot meet this date, contact Oshkosh Corporation Designee for resolution.
It is the policy of Oshkosh Corporation to approve initial samples of supplier provided parts before receiving production orders of those parts
Oshkosh has developed the PPAP PROCESS to facilitate this requirement.
The Default PPAP is Level 2, unless otherwise required by the Oshkosh Segment Quality Representative
PPAP requirements apply to the following parts:
1) Initial submission
2) Engineering Change(s)
3) Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional
4) Correction of Discrepancy
5) Production Break to Oshkosh Corporation > 1 year
6) Change to Optional Construction or Material
7) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
8) Change in Part Processing
9) Parts produced at Additional Location
10) Other - please specify
Please reference the Oshkosh Corporation Global Supplier Quality Manual for more detail on PPAP
requirements. The Manual can be retrieved on the http://osn.oshkoshcorp.com/ website.
The information in blue is interlinked to the other spreadsheets.

FILL IN THE BLUE SECTIONS FOR AUTOMATIC INPUT INTO FORMS
Part Name PART NAME

Part Number PART NUMBER
Engineering Revision Level ERL DATE
Engineering Revision Level Date ERL DATE
Models / Vehicle MODEL / VEHICLE
Supplier Name SUPPLIER NAME

Supplier Number 101112
Street Address ADDRESS
City CITY
State STATE
Country COUNTRY
Zip ZIP
Phone Number 555-555-5555
Fax Number 555-555-5554
Email Address Emailme@somewhere.com
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
Oshkosh Corporation
PPAP Part Submission Requirements
Part Number: PART NUMBER Purchase Order No.
Revision Level: ERL DATE Part Description: PART NAME
Supplier Name: SUPPLIER NAME Reason for Request: ALL PPAP CRITERIA
Supplier Number: 101112 OSK Program: MODEL / VEHICLE MUST CONFORM TO
Date Issued: Submission Due Date: Oshkosh Corporation Customer Specifics
defined in the Global Supplier Quality Manual
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN WRITING BY OSHKOSH CORPORATION:

Default PPAP Submission Level 2 - Unless Otherwise Specified by Oshkosh Corporation
(Segment Specific Requirements may vary)
S = Supplier Must Send Items to Oshkosh Corporation for Approval
* = Applicable material info required (material certification, Certificate of Compliance, or catalog page) with PSW
N/R= Documents are not required for development or submission
Submission Level
PPAP Submission Requirements and Detail Description 1 2 3 4
1.) Part Submission Warrant (PSW) S S S S
2.) Dimensional Results (Sub-Components Required - Refer to OSK-P2000 Production Part Approval Process (Sec 5.6) N/R S S S
3.) Design Records (Bubble Print) N/R S S S
4.) PPAP Samples - first production order / upon request prior to production order N/R S S S
5.) Print Notes: (Attach copy of Raw Material Certification / Performance Test Report / Surface Finish, Paint Process, Welding
Documentation such as WPS/PQRs/Welder Certs) * S S *
6.) Supplier Change Request (OSK-F1000) - if applicable S S S S
7.) Design Failure Modes effects Analysis (DFMEA) - if supplier is design responsible N/R N/R S N/R
8.) Process Flow Diagram (PFD) N/R N/R S N/R
9.) Process Failure Modes Effects Analysis (PFMEA) N/R N/R S N/R
10.) Initial Process Capability - for major / critical characteristics - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
11.) Measurement System Analysis (MSA) - for major / critical characteristics - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
12.) Process Control Plan N/R N/R S N/R
13.) Appearance Approval Report (AAR) - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
14.) Checking Aids (Fixture, gage, template, etc) - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
15.) Records of Compliance with Customer Specific Requirements - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
16.) Photo Documentation (Master Sample of PPAP parts & Section J-Labeling) S S S N/R
17.) Tooling Photo Documentation - if applicable N/R S S N/R
18.) QC-112 PPAP Check List N/R N/R S N/R
Additional Submission Instructions below:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PPAP SAMPLE PARTS - LABEL
Send identified sample(s), such as, Piece#1, Piece#2, Piece#3, etc to Oshkosh Corporation with appropriate label.
Please complete and attach this page on the outside of each package in plain view of a fork lift/material
handler/operator. Put the Packing slip pocket near the label.
In the event parts are “Loose” shipped, a label should be placed on each part. This would also apply to parts
laying on pallets. Label on a painted part must be wire tied or attached in a way such that the painted surface
is protected from label adhesion.
PPAP SAMPLE PARTS

INSPECTION VERIFICATION REQUIRED
Purchased Order#:
Part Number:
Revision Level:
Supplier Name:
Supplier Number:
Supplier Inspected By:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
Part Submission Warrant

Part Name PART NAME Oshkosh Part Number PART NUMBER
Shown on Drawing Number Supplier Part Number
Engineering Revision Level ERL DATE Dated ERL DATE

Safety and/or Government Regulation Yes No Purchase Order No.
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
SUPPLIER NAME 101112

Organization Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Customer Name/Division
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer
CITY STATE ZIP U.S.A.

City Region Postal Code Country
MATERIALS REPORTING
Compliant to requirements stated in the Suppliers Standards Guide (Section D.32) referencing Hazardous Materials.
Yes No
REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one)
Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Production Break to Oshkosh Corporation > 1 year Other - please specify
REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

Level 1 - Warrant only submitted to customer. *Applicable material info required (material certification, Certificate of Compliance, or catalog page)
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples, ISIR, and Material/Performance/Surface Finish/Paint Test Results
(Check items that have been submitted within this PPAP submission)
1. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)
2. Dimensional results
(ISIR)
3. Design Record / 5a. Print Notes: Material 5d. Print Notes: Part
4. PPAP
Drawing 5b. Print Notes: Surface Finish
Tests 5e. Print Notes: Paint, Plating, Coating
Identification
Samples
5. Print Notes (check all that 5c. Print Notes: Functional
Tests Tests
5f. Welding
apply)
6. Engineering Change Records / Tests
Deviations
Level 3 - All Level 2 Requirements plus: QC-112 (Defense only), DFMEA, PFD, PFMEA, Control Plan, Initial Process
Capability, MSA, checking aids, customer specific requirements (CFAT), master sample photo, tooling photo.
(Check items that have been submitted within this PPAP Submission - See PPAP Requirements Tab)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Level 4
(Check items that have been submitted within this PPAP Submission)
1. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)

2. Dimensional results (ISIR)
3. Design Record / Drawing
4. PPAP Samples
5. Confirmation of conformance to all Print Notes: Yes No n/a
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered? Yes No n/a
Declaration:
I have noted on this part submission warrant any deviation from the associated design record and/or any areas of non-compliance to the Oshkosh Corporation requirements. If
Yes, Explain _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Organization Authorized Signature Date
Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.

Title E-mail
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY

(Level 4 PPAP's do not require signed PSW)
PPAP Warrant Disposition: Approved Rejected Other
Customer Signature Date
Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C: (Applies to all FMTV Technical Data)

Distribution authorized to US government agencies and their contractors, Reason: Administrative or Operational Use. Date of Determination (Part Submission Warrant Supplier Completion Date). Other requests for this
document shall be referred to: The Project Manager, Medium Tactical Vehicles, Attn: Engineering Director, Mail Stop #500, 6501 East 11 Mile Road, Warren, MI 48397-5000 DSN 786-6622 or Commercial (586) 282-6622
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
COMPANY LETTERHEAD REQUIRED
Certificate of Conformance (CoC)

Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS)
Supplier Name:
Supplier Number:
Part Description:
Supplier's Part Number:
OSK Part Number:

OSK Drawing Number: Revision:
The following are the minimum PPAP elements that must be submitted with a COTS item.
Design Record (balloon drawing)

Engineering Change Documents (if applicable)
Customer Engineering Approval (if applicable)
Dimensional Results
Sample Production Parts
Master Sample (photo)
Customer Specific Requirements (CFAT) (if applicable)
Part Submission Warrant
Evidence from the OEM to demonstrate commerciality of part (catalog page, product data sheet, etc)
I certify that the items / materials referenced above are commercially available.
I certify that the above mentioned items/materials meet the purchase order requirements and referenced drawing specifications and
standards. I also certify I am an authorized supplier representative.
Signature Title Date
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PPAP ELEMENTS CHECKLIST

SUPPLIER NAME: SUPPLIER NAME PART NUMBER: PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER #: SUPPLIER NUMBER PART DESCRIPTION: PART NAME
SUBMITTER: REVISION LEVEL: ERL DATE
Part Submission Warrant CHECKLIST REV. DATE: F
Master Sample Picture

Process Flow Diagram
Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Material Performance
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Elements shaded green (above) indicate minimum submittal for interim approval
AIAG-PPAP PPAP Element PPAP Submission Comments
Section
*Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) - (If Applicable on Purchased Part Level) Y N N/A Comments
Is this component Commercial Off the Shelf (commercially available to the general public, unaltered, and under
1 the manufacturers’ EXACT part number) as defined in the Defense Segment Addendum, Section 14?
If the answer to question 1 is yes, are the minimum PPAP elements for a COTS part (including a catalog page or
equivalent, verbatim to address all OSK specifications) provided in accordance to the COTS section in the Defense
1A Segment Addendum, Section 14, and in accordance to the OSK Certificate of Conformance form?
Is this component COTS plus (commercially available but with additional performance / print requirements) as
2 defined in the Defense Segment Addendum, Section 14
If the answer to question 2 is yes, have you provided objective evidence that the part meets all of the OSK print
2A requirement? (see Defense Segment Addendum, Section 14)
2.2.18 PSW Y N N/A Comments

Is the current copy of the PPAP workbook utilized (Note: See Oshkosh Supplier Network or Reliance for latest
2.2.18
revision- located: https://osn.oshkoshcorp.com)?
2.2.18 Are all sections completed properly and the PSW signed and dated?
2.2.18 Does the revision level for the drawing submitted match the Purchase Order?
2.2.18 Is the PO # field completed?
2.2.18 Is the Manufacturer & Customer name accurate & complete?
2.2.18 Is the buyer's name included?
2.2.18 Is the Materials Report Section in compliance with Suppliers Standards Guide (Section D.32)?
2.2.18 Are the reason(s) for PPAP submittal accurate AND checked?
2.2.18 Is the correct Submission level checked AND applicable elements checked?
2.2.9 Dimensional Results / Print Notes Y N N/A Comments
2.2.9 Are the dimensional results, dated-signed and relatively current?
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
2.2.9 Are 3 parts measured as required for Level 3 PPAP?
2.2.9 Is 1 part measured for sub-tier level drawing?
2.2.9 Are the TOLERANCES properly recorded?
2.2.9 Are the MIN / MAX spec limits on the ISIR correct according to the TOLERANCE limits on the print?
2.2.9 Are the dimensional results within specification?

If dimensional results for each of the 3 pieces are identical, is there justification for the exact values recorded (it
2.2.9
otherwise appears to be pencil-whipped)?
2.2.9 Are Standard or Metric units properly recorded according to the print ?
2.2.9 Are proper GAGE TYPES used for the specified tolerance (adequate discrimination)?
2.2.9 Are proper GAGE TYPES used for the application (calipers / tape measures have limited use)?
2.2.9 Are multiple dimensions ALL listed and ALL verified (example 2x's, 6x's, etc.)?
2.2.9 Are MSA / GRR / Capability Studies provided for Critical Characteristics?
2.2.9 For multi-cavity tooling, at least 1 piece per cavity must have a complete layout
2.2.9 Print Notes Y N N/A Comments
2.2.9 Are all print notes addressed?
Are there requirements in the Notes for which Certifications are needed? (Painting, Plating, Welding, material,
2.2.9
traceability, performance testing)
2.2.9 Are three pieces verified and the results recorded for each print note as required for Level 3 PPAP?
2.2.9 Is the Print Notes Report signed and dated?

2.2.1 Design Record Y N N/A Comments
2.2.1 Does balloon drawing use the OSK/AOPN drawing?
2.2.1 Is the balloon drawing provided legible?
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
2.2.1 Are there SC / CC's identified on the print (no = NA)?
2.2.1 Is the drawing or design record at the proper engineering/revision level and does it matches the P.O.?
2.2.1 Are all dimensions including notes (weld symbols, etc.) ballooned on the drawing?
2.2.2 & Authorized Engineering Change Docs (RCM (Reliance Change Management)/Customer Engineering
2.2.3 approval Y N N/A Comments
Is there an approved Deviation Request, submitted to RCM (Reliance Change Management) system, included for
2.2.3
all Dimensions, Notes, and Print Discrepancies that do not meet requirements?
2.2.2 &
Is the approved Change Request valid for the order produced?
2.2.3
2.2.4 DFMEA Y N N/A Comments
If the supplier is design responsible: Is the DFMEA is included within the PPAP OR is there a record indicating it
2.2.4
was reviewed & approved by OSK?
2.2.4 Does the print indicate that the component is "Source Control" or "Vendor Item Control"? (no = NA)
2.2.4 Is the DFMEA prepared using current AIAG guidelines?
2.2.4 Are Significant Characteristics (Special/ Critical) identified and captured within the DFMEA (no= NA)?
2.2.4 If Oshkosh is design responsible: Are there SC / CC's present on the print (no = NA)?
If Oshkosh is design responsible and the part is manufactured by OSK: Are the sub-component level PPAP's
2.2.4
present with submittal (no = NA)?
2.2.5 Process Flow Diagram(s) Y N N/A Comments
Does the PPAP documentation cite specific print note requirements (associated with product or process) in Flow /
2.2.5
PFMEA/ Control Plan (For Example Mil-STD-130 Part Marking ID)?
2.2.5 Does the Flow Diagram reflect the entire process e.g. Receiving, outside processing?
2.2.5 Are the process steps for the Process Flow, PFMEA and Control Plan aligned?
2.2.6 PFMEA Y N N/A Comments
2.2.6 Has the PFMEA been constructed utilizing the OSK ranking worksheet for Severity and Occurrences?
Are there SC / CC identified by the Supplier? "NO" = N/A (refer to Criticality Matrix in Global Supplier Quality
2.2.6
Manual)
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
In cases where SC/CC have been identified, does the supplier have SPC or 100% inspection for them noted in the
2.2.6
"Control Method" column?
2.2.6 Are Detection values correct for Visual Inspection per AIAG (Minimum 7 or 8)?
2.2.6 Are Recommended Actions cited for the highest RPN?

2.2.6
2.2.7 Control Plan Y N N/A Comments
2.2.7 Has the supplier indicated the Control Plan type? e.g. Prototype / Production
2.2.7 Are Product and Process Characteristics properly identified (in the correct columns) per the AIAG definitions?
2.2.7 Does the Control Plan cover all activities from receiving inspection to shipment?
2.2.7 Are all Special Product/Process Characteristics included in the Control Plan?
2.2.7 Are Control Method tools such as SPC or 100% inspection for the Special Characteristics defined?
2.2.7
2.2.11 Initial Process Studies Y N N/A Comments
If there are SC/CC identified (on print or supplier process): Does the supplier meet Cpk of 1.33 for Significant
2.2.11
Characteristics and/or Cpk of 1.67 for Critical Characteristics?
If there are SC/CC identified (on print or supplier process) and the supplier conducts 100% inspection instead of
2.2.7
Capability Studies, is inspecton included on the Control Plan?
Were the initial process studies conducted using the required number of samples and using production processing,
2.2.7
gauging and materials?
2.2.8 MSA Y N N/A Comments
2.2.8 Are there SC/CC's identified (on print or supplier process) and MSA is included in PPAP?
Has the MSA been constructed using the Defense Segment MSA Instruction Guide (located:
2.2.8
https://osn.oshkoshcorp.com)?
Was the MSA Report / Checklist used to ensure completeness (included within the Defense Segment MSA
2.2.8
Instruction Guide)?
2.2.8 Does the PPAP package contain a photo of the measurement tool?
2.2.13 Appearance Approval Y N N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
2.2.13 Was an Appearance Approval Report submitted?

2.2.16 Checking Aids Y N N/A Comments
2.2.16 Are all product specific checking aids, fixtures, test stands and Mylar listed on the Control Plan?
2.2.16 Has the supplier provided preventive maintenance / calibration records for the checking aids?
2.2.16 Do all aspects of the checking aids agree with part dimension requirements?
2.2.10 Material / Performance Testing Y N N/A Comments
2.2.10 Are material certifications included for all requirements specified on the print?
Are material certification(s) provided (where no specification is given) to establish a base-line of product
2.2.10
acceptability?
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) dated relatively recent (within 12 months)?
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) signed and dated?
2.2.10 Are foreign Certification(s) translated into English?
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) provided for sub components?
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) included for hardware called-out on the print?
2.2.10 Do certification(s) included explicitly reference standards cited (example: SAE/MIL/ASTM)?
2.2.10 Do material certification(s) show adherence to specified temperature requirements?

Are test results included for product material(s) when performance or functional requirements are specified by the
2.2.10
design record AND/OR the supplier's Control Plan?
2.2.12 Qualified Lab Docs Y N N/A Comments
2.2.12 Do test reports indicate testing was done internally by the supplier?
2.2.12 Does the test report indicate testing was done externally by a 3rd party?
Do the Material or Performance Tests results meet the requirements outlined in section 13 of the GSQM Defense
2.2.12
Addendum?
2.2.14 Sample Production Parts Y N N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
2.2.14 Are the PPAP parts identified per section 13 of the Defense Addendum prior to shipment?
2.2.15 Master Sample (photo) Y N N/A Comments
2.2.15 Do they capture paint / no paint zones?
2.2.15 Do they capture the part marking ID and it is correct per print requirements?
2.2.15 Do they capture significant view angles of the part?

(UID-Specific requirements) Is the sample label photo taken directly perpendicular to the label, at approximately 1
2.2.15
foot away, with no glare on the label?
2.2.17 Customer Specific Requirements (CFAT) Y N N/A Comments
2.2.17 This part has CFAT requirements, it does comply, but is not finalized
Electrical Y N N/A Comments
1 Do circuits, connectors and splices on print agree?
2 Has circuit testing been completed? Spec 400 sec 5.6 (or applicable standards)
3 Do circuit test results agree with the print?
4 Are test results included for testing specified on print?
5 Are continuity tests conducted per spec 400 (or applicable standards) AND identified within the Control Plan?
6 Are there 3 pieces tested for ALL electrical tests required?
Finishing / Paint Y N N/A Comments

1 Does the submittal include actual salt spray test results including Qualified Lab Documentation?
2 Do paint worksheets verify conformance to pre-treatment, coating, mil thickness, adhesion, permeability for 3
pieces?
3* Do paint or plating worksheets verify conformance to the finish drawing number and the revision level
4 Do plating certifications explicitly state adherence to print requirement?
5 Do paint worksheets verify conformance to blast profile?
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
6 Are oven cure times & temperatures recorded?
7 Are test results included for cyclical testing (GMW 14872) if JLTV Finish print (12593834) is referenced?
8 CARC Paint Certification: Is the ARL (Army Research Lab) certification with corresponding the batch number if
CARC paint is required?
Weld Y N N/A Comments
1 Are all weld lengths, sizes, types & locations cited on the ballooned drawing?
2 Are the WPS AND PQR's #'s referenced on the PPAP worksheet?
3 Are the WPS AND PQR's #'s INCLUDED in the PPAP submittal?
4 Are the WPS and PQR authorized by a CWI (or equivalent authority)?
5 Are 3 weld features measured as required for Level 3 PPAP?
6 If WPS not required per AWS (for example), are appropriate weld documentation and verification methods
included?
Castings
Either questions 1-3 OR 4-6 will apply depending on the casting standards stated on drawing Y N N/A Comments
1 Are personnel performing radiographic inspection reports certified in accordance with ASNT (American Society for
Non-Destructive Testing) Level 2?
2 Are the ASNT (American Society for Non-Destructive Testing) certified radiographic procedures being approved by
a level 3 Technician?
3 Are certifications submitted within the PPAP for personnel verifying compliance to ASNT (American Society for
Non-Destructive Testing)?
4 Are personnel performing radiographic inspections certified in accordance with NAS 410 Level 2?
5 Are the NAS 410 certified radiographic procedures being approved by a level 3 Technician?
6 Are certifications submitted within the PPAP for personnel verifying compliance to NAS 410?
7 Is the Inspection laboratory accredited (e.g. A2LA, ISO17025 for radiographic inspection per ASTM E1742 (film) or
E1255 (digital)?
9 Does the report reference the correct inspection standards as stated within AMS 2175A (ASTM E155/E2422 for
aluminum, ASTM E186/E446 for steel, iron)
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
10 Does the report specify casting grade and does it match drawing requirements?
11 Does the report specify casting class and does it match drawing requirements?
12 Does the report include melt numbers, heat lot numbers or date codes?
13 Do radiographic images show that Image Quality Indicator (IQI) placement is compliant to 2-2T per ASTM E1255
(digital) or ASTM E1742 (film)?
14 Do the print notes, PFMEA and/or Control Plan document address gate, riser and parting line projections comply
with AMS2175A table 3 (page 11 of 20)?
15 Does the control plan reflect radiographic sampling frequency in accordance with the print note / Global Supplier
Quality Manual?
16 Does the control plan reflect radiographic sampling for all mold cavities in accordance with the print note / Global
Supplier Quality Manual?
17 Is there evidence within the Control Plan that visual inspections were performed with ambient lighting that is not
less than 75 foot-candles (approximately a 60W incandescent bulb)?
18 Does the control plan specify that castings are 100% visually examined per AMS2175A, 4.3.1?
19 Is a written procedure listed within the Process Control Plan as to how to inspect the component IAW E1255 (digital
image), section A1.5.2 or E1742 (film image), section 6.1?
20* Is there measurement / photo evidence in the PPAP that the casting wall thickness / inner passges (if applicable)
have been measured as outlined in the Global Supplier Quality Manual- Defense Addendum (section 11)?
21* Does the control plan state that the casting wall thickness / inner passges (if applicable) will be measured semi-
annually as outlined in the Global Supplier Quality Manual- Defense Addendum (section 11)?
Armor Y N N/A Comments

1 Is the Ballistic Cert from Aberdeen included, and does it reference the same Heat # as the Material Cert?
2 Is the Blast Profile Measured, and is it within specification?
3 If traceability is required on the print, is it referenced in the PFD, PFMEA, and Control Plan, and identified as a CC?
4 If traceability is required on the print, is the appropriate label (i.e. Green Label vs UID) photographed, and is it
photographed in such a way that Oshkosh engineering can verify the snowflake data structure?
5 If part is welded, is the 48 hour weld hold process step included in the PFD, PFMEA, and Control Plan?
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20


Requirements (CFAT)
Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Qualified Lab Docs
Sample Production
Process Capability
Customer Specific
Results/Print Notes
Design Record
Checking Aids
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
Parts
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14 2.2.15 2.2.17
Section
6 If the part is welded, does the WPS, PQR, and Welder Qualifications meet the requirements of the Ground Combat
Vehicle Weld Code?
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
ART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
F
Submission Comments
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
DIMENSIONAL RESULTS
ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER NAME PART NUMBER: PART NUMBER

SUPPLIER NUMBER: 101112 PART NAME: PART NAME
NAME OF INSPECTION FACILITY: ENGINEERING REVISION LEVEL ERL DATE

DATE:
Supplier required to provide marked up drawing to identify items inspected.
DIMENSION / TOLERANCE SPECIFICATION / LIMITS GAGE QTY. ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA) NOT
ITEM OK
SPECIFICATION TYPE* TESTED Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3 OK
- + MIN MAX
ex 4 1 1 3 5 8.00 3.00 2.00

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
*Traceable to NIST Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF RAW MATERIAL CERTIFICATION, SURFACE FINISH,
& PART IDENTIFICATION)

DATE:
Supplier required to provide marked up drawing to identify all "PRINT NOTES" verified.
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS GAGE QTY. ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA) NOT
ITEM SPECIFICATION OK
TYPE TESTED Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3 OK
MIN MAX
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF PERFORMANCE TESTS )


DATE:
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS GAGE QTY. ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA) NOT
ITEM SPECIFICATION OK
TYPE TESTED Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3 OK
MIN MAX
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
DEFENSE PRINT NOTES - PAINT

(PAINT & COATING TEST RESULTS)

NAME OF INSPECTION FACILITY: ENGINEERING REVISION LEVEL ERL DAT

DATE:
Document Painting Method / Industry Standard used to prepare these components.
Finishing Requirement Drawing Number:

Finish Requirements Drawing Revision Level:
Method #
Cleaning Standard Utilized:
Pretreat Standard Utilized:
ARL CERTIFIED CARC BATCH#
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS GAGE SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) NOT

Characteristic Standard QTY. TESTED OK
TYPE OK
MIN MAX Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3
Prime Coat:
Blast / Surface Profile
Thickness*
Thickness (including blast profile)*
Permeability
Adhesion
Oven Cure Time (if used)
Ambient Cure Time (if used)
ASTM B117/
Salt Spray TTC-490
Cyclical Test GMW 14872

Top Coat:
Thickness (over primer)*

Total Thickness (reference)*
Permeability
Adhesion
Ambient Cure Time (if used)
Oven Cure Time (if used)
ASTM B117/
Salt Spray TTC-490
Cyclical Test GMW 14872
* Rejection will not be made based on coating thickness in excess of the maximum alone, but on a subsequent performance failure per MIL-DTL 53072 Sec 4.2.3.3.
Defense Segment: Compliant to the requirements stated in the Suppliers Standards Guide (Section
(Circle) Yes / No Signed by:
D.32) referencing Hazardous Materials.
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
DEFENSE PRINT NOTES - PLATING

(PLATING TEST RESULTS)
NAME OF INSPECTION FACILITY: ENGINEERING REVISION LEVEL ERL

DATE:
Document Plating Method / Industry Standard used to prepare these components.
Finishing Requirement Drawing Number:
Finish Requirements Drawing Revision Level:
Plating Type Required:
Cleaning Requirements (If Applicable):
Plating Supplier (If Tier 2):
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS GAGE QTY. SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)
Characteristic Standard OK
MIN MAX TYPE TESTED Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3
Plating Test Results (attach all test records):
Plating Thickness
Composition of Coating
Salt Spray
Defense Segment: Compliant to the requirements stated in the Suppliers Standards Guide (Section D.32)
(Circle) Yes / No Signed by:
referencing Hazardous Materials.
ATTACH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE HERE
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
RL
NOT
OK
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT

(COMMERCIAL PAINT RESULTS)
PART DRAWING APPLICATION
NUMBER PART NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) MODEL / VEHICLE
PART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE
NAME PART NAME CODE ERL DATE
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING SUPPLIER / VENDOR SUPPLIER / VENDOR
NAME LOCATION CODE CODE ###
REASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHER
SUBMISSION PRE TEXTURE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT ENGINEERING CHANGE
APPEARANCE EVALUATION
Coating Spec (if Applicable) Attribute Frequency SPECIFICATIONS
Color Match
TopCoat Gloss
Crosshatch Adhesion
Solvent Resistence
Pencil Hardness
Film Thickness (Powder) Refer to Applicable QACs and or Specification on print/PO (Contact Buyer)
Film Thickness (Liquid)
Production Adhesion Test
Orange Peel
Salt Spray Creepage
Edge Coverage
COLOR EVALUATION
Color Lot Part # SPECIFICATIONS
JLG Specifications Refer to: Color Code 4150613

JerrDan Specifications Refer to: Color Code Chart 4150613
Pierce Specifications Refer to:
McNeilus Specifications Refer to: TBD
COMMENTS
Document Painting Method / Industry Standard used to prepare these components.
Method # / Finishing Requirement on Drawing:
Cleaning Standard Utilized:
Painting Standard Utilized:
Characteristic SPECIFICATION / LIMITS

GAGE
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OK
NOT Notes:
TYPE OK
MIN MAX Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3
Prime Coat:
Blast Profile*
Oven Cure
Ambient Time (if used)
Cure
Time (if used)
Salt Spray
Top Coat:
Oven Cure Time
(if used)

If Any Questions - Please Contact Quality Representative from Segment Associated
ORGANIZATION PHONE NO. DATE AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER DATE
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF WPS/PQR DOCUMENTATION)
ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER NAME PART NUMBEPART NUMBER


DATE:
Supplier required to provide marked up print to identify ALL Weld items.
CHECK FOR CONFORMANCE
PQR# Piece 1
ITEM WELD SYMBOL WELD DESCRIPTION WPS# (IF NOT PRE- Piece 2 Piece 3 OK
QUALIFIED)
WELD WELD WELD
WELD SIZE WELD SIZE WELD SIZE
LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE TITLE
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
NT NOTES
WPS/PQR DOCUMENTATION)
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
NOT
OK
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
Criticality Matrix
10 <CC> Critical Characteristic
Must be addressed on Control Plan
with 100% inspection or 1.67 Cpk
9
8
<SC> Significant Characteristic
7
Must be addressed on Control Plan
Severity
with 100% inspection or 1.33 Cpk

6
4 Continuous Improvement Zone

Address top 20% Failure Modes /
Causes (Pareto'd by RPN)
3
1 Low Risk Zone

Address as needed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Occurrence
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
SEVERITY RATING SCALE
ASSY
CUSTOMER EFFECT SEVERITY OF EFFECT ON PRODUCT RANK SEVERITY OF EFFECT ON PROCESS
EFFECT
Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation Hazardous
May endanger operator (machine or
and/or involves noncompliance with government 10 without
Failure to Meet Safety assembly) without warning. warning
regulation without warning.
and/or Regulatory
Requirements Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation
May endanger operator (machine or Hazardous
and/or involves noncompliance with government 9 with warning
assembly) with warning.
regulation with warning
Loss of primary function (vehicle / item inoperable, but 100% of production run may have to be Major
8 Disruption
does not affect safe operation). scrapped, line shutdown, or stop ship.
Loss or Degradation of A portion of the production run may have to
Primary Function Degradation of primary function (vehicle / item be scrapped, deviation from primary process Significant
7 Disruption
operable but at a reduced level of performance) including decreased line speed or added
manpower.
Loss of secondary function (vehicle / item operable,
100% of production run may have to be
but does not affect safe operation, but secondary 6
reworked off line and accepted.
Loss or Degradation of functions inoperable) Moderate
Secondary Function Degradation of secondary function (vehicle / item Disruption
A portion of the production run may have to
operable, but secondary functions operate at reduced 5
be reworked off line and accepted.
level of performance)
Condition impacting a tertiary function but vehicle
remains operable, appearance or audible noise, or 100% of production run may have to be
4
item does not conform and noticed by >75% of reworked in station before it is processed.
customers Minor
Condition impacting a tertiary function but vehicle Disruption
A portion of the production run may have to
Loss or Degradation of remains operable, appearance or audible noise, or
3 be reworked in station before it is
Tertiary Function item does not conform and noticed by ~50% of
processed.
customers
Condition impacting a tertiary function but vehicle
remains operable, appearance or audible noise, or Slight inconvenience to process, operation,
2 Annoyance
item does not conform and noticed by <25% of or operator.
customers
No effect No discernible effect 1 No discernible effect. None
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
OCCURRENCE RATING SCALE
OCCURRENCE OF
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE OF CAUSE OCCURRENCE OF CAUSE
CAUSE
FAILURE FROM TESTING FOR PFMEA
FOR DFMEA
One occurrence
Very High Observed on over 50% of test assets. New technology/new design with no history.
per part/machine
Failure is inevitable with new design, new One occurrence
application, or change in duty cycle/operating per shift
conditions. *(>1 in 5)
One occurrence
Failure is likely with new design, new application,
High Observed on >25-50% of test assets. per day
or change in duty cycle/operating conditions.
*(1 in 5)
Failure is uncertain with new design, new One occurrence
application, or change in duty cycle/operating per week
conditions. *(1 in 25)
One occurrence
Frequent failures associated with similar designs
every 2 weeks
or in design simulation and testing.
*(1 in 50)
One occurrence
Occasional failures associated with similar
Moderate Observed on >12.5-25% of test assets. per month
designs or in design simulation and testing.
*(1 in 100)
One occurrence
Isolated Failures associated with similar design or
per 3 months
in design simulation and testing.
*(1 in 300)
Only isolated failures associated with almost One occurrence
Low Observed on up to 12.5% of test assets. identical design or in design simulation and per 6 months
testing. *(1 in 600)
No observed failures associated with almost One occurrence
identical design or in design simulation and per year
testing. *(1 in 1200)
Very Low No occurrences observed during testing.
Less than one occurrence per year
Failure is eliminated through preventive control.
*(<1 in 1200)
*Occurrence frequency for PFMEA should be calculated based upon yearly production volumes
(for example, if 1200 units are produced each year, one occurrence per month equals 1 in 100 units produced)
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
RANK
10
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
Detection Rating Scale
Rank DETECTION PROBABILITY CRITERIA

10 No detection opportunity No current process control; Cannot detect or is not analyzed.
9 Not likely to detect at any stage Failure Mode and/or Error (Cause) is not easily detected (e.g. random audits)
8 Problem Detection Post Processing Failure Mode detection post-processing by operator through visual/tactile/audible means.
Failure Mode detection in-station by operator through visual/tactile/audible means or post-
7 Problem Detection at Source
processing through use of attribute gauging (go/no go, manual torque check/clicker wrench, etc.)
Failure Mode detection post-processing by operator through use of variable gauging or in-station
6 Problem Detection Post Processing
by operator through use of attribute gauging (go/no go, manual torque check/clicker wrench, etc.)
Failure Mode or Error (Cause) detection in-station by operator through use of variable gauging or
5 Problem Detection at Source by automated controls in-station that will detect discrepant part and notify operator (light, buzzer,
etc.). Gauging performed on setup and first-piece check (for set-up causes only).
Failure Mode detection post-processing by automated controls that will detect discrepant part and
4 Problem Detection Post Processing
lock part to prevent further processing.
Failure Mode detection in-station by automated controls that will detect discrepant part and
3 Problem Detection at Source
prevent automatically lock part in station to prevent further processing.
Error (Cause) detection in-station by automated controls that will detect error and prevent
2 Error Detection and/or Problem Prevention
discrepant part from being made.
Error (Cause) prevention as a result of fixture design, machine design or part design. Discrepant
1 Detection not applicable; Failure Prevention
parts cannot be made because item has been error-proofed by process/product design.
This scale was adapted from the AIAG FMEA Manual (4th Edition)
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
DFMEA - DESIGN FAILURE MODES EFFECTS ANALYSIS

(Format for example only; Supplier created templates may be used)
System
Subsystem Design Responsibility: FMEA Number:
Component:___________________________________________ Key Date: Prepared by:
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s): MODEL / VEHICLE Date (Orig.):
Core Team: Date (Rev.):
Current Current
Action Results
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Design Design
Classification
Severity
Potential Potential Potential
Item / Recommended & Target
RPN
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Controls Controls Actions
Function Action(s) Completion
OCC
Mode of Failure of Failure
DET
SEV
Prevention Detection Date Taken & Effective
Date
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
RPN
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PROCESS/INSPECTION FLOWCHART
Product Program MODEL / VEHICLE Issue Date ECL ERL DATE

Supplier Name SUPPLIER NAME Part Name PART NAME
Supplier Location ADDRESS Part Number PART NUMBER
Legend:
Operation Transportation Inspection Delay Storage
Step Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

Operation or Event and Analysis Methods
Operation
Transportation
Inspection
Delay
Storage
Change History
Date Revision
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PFMEA - PROCESS FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Print # PART NUMBER Rev. ERL FMEA Number:

Item: n/a Process Responsibilit Prepared by:
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s): MODEL / VEHICLE Key Date: Date (Orig.)
Core Team: Date (Rev.)
Current Current
Action Results
Classification
Occurrence
Process Process Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Process Step / Potential Potential Potential
Recommended & Target
RPN
Function Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Controls Controls Actions
Action(s) Completion
OCC
RPN
SEV
DET
Mode of Failure of Failure Prevention Detection Taken & Effective
Date
Date
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
CONTROL PLAN
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
1/1/1996 1/1/1996
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
PART NUMBER
Part Name/Description Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
PART NAME
Supplier/Plant Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
101112
MACHINE, CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
PART/ PROCESS NAME/ SPECIAL
DEVICE PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE REACTION
PROCESS OPERATION CHAR.
JIG, TOOLS CONTROL PLAN
NUMBER DESCRIPTION NO. PRODUCT PROCESS CLASS SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
FOR MFG. SIZE FREQ. METHOD
TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
PPAP MASTER SAMPLE "PICTURE" DOCUMENTATION

DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL DATE
Supplier is required to visually document the Master Sample (PPAP Parts):

1.) Document how the parts are labeled. To include any date codes, vendor codes, etc.. (if applicable)
2.) Document the parts as a whole what they look like in the final state in which they are provided to Oshkosh Corporation.
PICTURES OF MASTER SAMPLE LABELING
PICTURES OF MASTER SAMPLE PART
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
SAMPLE "PICTURE" DOCUMENTATION

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL DATE
MASTER SAMPLE LABELING
OF MASTER SAMPLE PART
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
UID Label "PICTURE" DOCUMENTATION

DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL DATE
Supplier is required to document the UID traceability labels for PPAP

1.) include photos of the (3) UID labels for the PPAP parts
2.) Include excerpt of traceabilty log as evidence that a traceability record is maintained
PHOTO OF (3) UID TAGS USED ON PPAP PARTS
PHOTO OR EXCERPT AS EVIDENCE THE SCANED MATRIX IS READABLE AND A LOG IS MAINTAINED FOR TRACEABILITY PURPOSES
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
SECTION J LABELING VALIDATION

TOOL / FIXTURE NUMBER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL DATE

DATE:
Supplier is required to provide sample of SSG Section J compliant label(s) and document with Photo in PPAP workbook
PICTURE OF SECTION J COMPLIANT LABELING
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
TOOLING & FIXTURES - PROPERTY OF OSHKOSH CORP.

TOOL / FIXTURE NUMBER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL DATE

DATE:
Supplier is required to identify all Oshkosh Owned Tools & Fixtures and document with Photo in PPAP workbook
PHOTO OF OSHKOSH OWNED TOOLING AND FIXTURES
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
Click on the link below to access a template that will display control charts, histogram and Cp/Cpk results
Once the template has been populated you can copy and paste it onto this worksheet
http://asq.org/sixsigma/2008/05/process-capability-study-1500.html?shl=090025
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT

ATTRIBUTE METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser

PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Date Performed
PART NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# XT a P'a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked
1 0.000 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.000
3 0.000
4 0.000
5 0.000
6 0.000
7 0.000
8 0.000
9 0.000
FROM THE GRAPH

ENTER THE FOLLOWING:
XT (P=.5) =
XT (P=.995) =
XT (P=.005) =
Measurement Unit Analysis

Bias Repeatability
B = R =
= =
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R t0.025,19 = 2.093
=
=
Result
Reviewed
Title
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
Directions for Gage Performance Curve for Attribute Analytical Method Form
1) Click Tools - Data Analysis - Regression

(If Data Analysis is not available load Analysis Tool Pak from the Add-Ins menu)
2) In the box for Input Y Range select the cells GR&R ATT(L)!D14:D22
3) In the box for Input X Range select the cells GR&R ATT(L)!B14:B22
4) In the box for Output range select the cells below A23:M60
5) Check Line Fit Plots
6) Press OK
7) Copy the Line Fit plot graph to the space on the Analytic sheet
8) Change the graph title to Gage Performance Curve
9) Change the x axis to Xt
10) Change the y axis to Probability
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

ATTRIBUTE RISK METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
PART NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
DATA TABLE
Reference
PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Value Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

ATTRIBUTE RISK METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
PART NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
Risk Analysis
A * B Crosstabulation
B
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
B * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
B
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
A * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Kappa A B C
A -
B -
C -
DETERMINATION
AxB
AxC
BxC
Approved for Use Date
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET

VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
PART NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra =
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb =
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
17 (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=
18 xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
19 * UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV)
= 2 0.8865 =
= 3 0.5907 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/TV)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials K2 0.7087 0.5236
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/TV)
GRR = {(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 Parts K3 =
= 2 0.7087 =
= 3 0.5236
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464
PV = RP x K3 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/TV)
= 6 0.3745 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Total Variation (TV) 8 0.3378
TV = {(GRR2 + PV2)}1/2 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= 10 0.3145 =
= =
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
17 (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=
18 xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
19 * UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Measurement Unit Analysis % Tolerance (Tol)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/Tol)
= 2 0.8865 =
= 3 0.5907 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/Tol)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials K2 0.7087 0.5236
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/Tol)
GRR = {(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 Parts K3 =
= 2 0.7087 =
= 3 0.5236
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464
PV = RP x K3 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/Tol)
= 6 0.3745 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Tolerance (Tol) 8 0.3378
Tol = Upper - Lower / 6 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= ( Upper - Lower ) / 6 10 0.3145 =
= =
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
GAGE REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET

ANOVA METHOD
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc =
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
Anova Table
Source DF SS MS F Sig
Appraiser
Parts
Appraiser-by-Part
Equipment
Total
* Significant at a = 0.05 level
Standard Deviation % Total Variation % Contribution
Anova Report (s)
Repeatability (EV)
Reproducibility (AV)
Appraiser by Part (INT)
GRR
Part-to-Part (PV)
Note:
Tolerance = Total variation (TV) =
Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa =
5 R ra =
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb =
10 R rb =
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc =
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVE ( Xp ) Rp=
Note: The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indication true bias.
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Average Chart -"Stacked"
1.00
0.80 Appraiser A Appraiser B

Average
0.60
Appraiser C Upper Spec
0.40
Lower Spec
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Stacked"
1.00
0.80
Appraiser A Appraiser B
0.60
Range
0.40 Appraiser C Rucl
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Average Chart -"Unstacked"
12.00
10.00
8.00
Average
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Unstacked"
12.00
10.00
8.00
Average
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Run Chart
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Value
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Scatter Plot
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Scatter Plot
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Part 8
Part 6
Part 7
Part 9
Part 10
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Error Chart
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Error Chart
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Normalized Histogram - Error
1
0.8
0.6
Appr A
0.4
0.2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 00
.0 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1.
-1 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0
1
0.8
0.6
Appr B
0.4
0.2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 00
.0 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1.
-1 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0
1
0.8
0.6
Appr C
0.4
0.2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 00
.0 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1.
-1 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
XY Plot of Averages by Size
12.00
10.00
8.00

6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Comparison XY Plot
12.00
10.00
8.00
Appr B
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Appr A
Comparison XY Plot
12.00
10.00
8.00
Appr C
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Appr A
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Comparison XY Plot
12.00
10.00
8.00
Appr C
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Appr B
Analysis:
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
X BAR & R
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R ) PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION PART NUMBER
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS
PART NAME
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
x= UCL = LCL = AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
r= UCL = LCL = RANGES (R CHART)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
X BAR & R
PART NAME
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C
PART
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER
1
R
E
2
A
D
3
I
N
4
G
S 5
SUM
SUM
x
NUM
HIGH-
R
LOW
** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
X BAR & R
PART NAME
Computations for the Control Chart Method of Evaluating a Measurement Process

REPLICATION ERROR: Average Subgroup Range = r = r d2
2 1.126
Number of replications = Subgroup Size = r = 3 1.693
4 2.059
Estimate Replication Standard Deviation r / d2 = se = 5 2.326
CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT: Appraiser Averages
no d2* Number of Appraisers = nA = 0 Appraiser Average

2 1.410 A
3 1.906 Number of Samples = n = 0 B
C
Range of Appraiser Averages = RA = 0.00
Appraiser Effect = RA / d2* = sA =
CALCULATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION:
sm = SQRT ( se + sA )
CALCULATIONS FOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO: Sample Averages
no d2* Range for these Sample Averages = Rp = 0.00 Sample Average

2 1.410 1
3 1.906 Estimate Sample to Sample Standard Deviation: 2
4 2.237 3
5 2.477 sp = Rp / d2* = 4
6 2.669 5
7 2.827 Signal to Noise Ratio: 6
8 2.961 sp / sm = 7
9 3.076 8
10 3.178 9
10
Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is:
ndc = 1.41 x sp / sm =
This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals that will span the range of product variation. (A 97% confidence
interval centered on a single measurement would contain the actual product value that is represented by that measurement 97%
of the time.)
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20
GAGE STUDY - X BAR & R

GAGE R STUDY PART NO. CHART NO.
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) ZERO EQUALS
PART NAME
APPRAISER MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE UPPER SPECIFICATION LOWER SPECIFICATION
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)

x= UCL = LCL =
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RANGES (R CHART)
r= UCL = LCL =
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
READING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VALUE
HIGH-
R n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOW
** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL
GAGE R ANALYSIS
Data in control? % Repeatability =
This method CANNOT be used for final gage acceptance without other complete and detailed MSA methods.
PPAP: Revision 2.1

Date: 10/01/20

Revision Date User Notes: Oshkosh Corporation Classification - Restricted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Revision Date User Notes: Oshkosh Corporation Classification - Restricted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revision Date User Notes Oshkosh Corporation Classification - Restricted #_x000D_

Production Part Approval Process (PPAP)

"One System…One Team...One Oshkosh”

The information in blue is interlinked to the other spreadsheets.

Part Name PART NAME

Supplier Name SUPPLIER NAME

Email Address Emailme@somewhere.com

PPAP: Revision 2.1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN WRITING BY OSHKOSH CORPORATION:

PPAP: Revision 2.1

PPAP SAMPLE PARTS - LABEL

PPAP SAMPLE PARTS

Supplier Inspected By:

PPAP: Revision 2.1

Part Submission Warrant

Engineering Revision Level ERL DATE Dated ERL DATE

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION

SUPPLIER NAME 101112

CITY STATE ZIP U.S.A.

REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

1. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)

Organization Authorized Signature Date

Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY

Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C: (Applies to all FMTV Technical Data)

PPAP: Revision 2.1

COMPANY LETTERHEAD REQUIRED

Certificate of Conformance (CoC)

OSK Part Number:

Design Record (balloon drawing)

Signature Title Date

PPAP: Revision 2.1

PPAP ELEMENTS CHECKLIST

Master Sample Picture

Qualified Lab Docs

2.2.18 PSW Y N N/A Comments

2.2.18 Is the PO # field completed?

2.2.18 Is the Manufacturer & Customer name accurate & complete?

2.2.18 Is the buyer's name included?

PPAP: Revision 2.1

PPAP ELEMENTS CHECKLIST

Master Sample Picture

Qualified Lab Docs

2.2.9 Are 3 parts measured as required for Level 3 PPAP?

2.2.9 Is 1 part measured for sub-tier level drawing?

2.2.9 Are the TOLERANCES properly recorded?

2.2.9 Are the dimensional results within specification?

2.2.9 Is the Print Notes Report signed and dated?

2.2.1 Is the balloon drawing provided legible?

PPAP: Revision 2.1

PPAP ELEMENTS CHECKLIST

Master Sample Picture

Qualified Lab Docs

2.2.1 Are there SC / CC's identified on the print (no = NA)?

2.2.4 Is the DFMEA prepared using current AIAG guidelines?

PPAP: Revision 2.1

PPAP ELEMENTS CHECKLIST

Master Sample Picture

Qualified Lab Docs

2.2.6 Are Recommended Actions cited for the highest RPN?

PPAP: Revision 2.1

PPAP ELEMENTS CHECKLIST