Supplier Quality Assessment

Guidelines

&F

Supplier Quality & Techinical AssesmentGuidelines for Conducting AssessmentsThe Supplier Assessment is to be a process assessment and should accurately reflect the Supplier's actual manufacturing and quality processes, as evidenced on the manufacturing floor. The Assessment should validate that the day-to-day operations comply with the requirements detailed in the Assessment. It is insufficient for a Supplier to have documented procedures only.

Recognizing that some suppliers have the capacity to provide multiple commodities, it is encouraged that the appropriate technical assessment be completed in parallel with the quality assessment portion. There is also a "Quick Assessment" worksheet that can be completed as part of a general overview or visit of a supplier's facility. Recognizing that this is a very general overview only, a detailed quality and technical assessment should always be completed prior to award of new business, substantial increase of existing business or in response to poor supplier performance and/or elevated risk.

For each audit section, the required evidence/documentation is described on the Assessment Form. The Assessor should also use the "Observations & Notes" field to help clarify and explain their findings. A "High", "Medium" or "Low" Risk status will automatically be generated by the score assigned to each element. The Summary Score for each particular element of the Operational/Quality portion, will automatically be reflected on the Audit Cover Page and the total number of high risk elements will be shown. The risk summaries for each Quick and Technical assessment completed, should be manually entered on the cover page, as well.

All areas assessed as High Risk must have a defined Corrective Action Plan detailed, as well as dates defined for completion, prior to award of any new business. Aside from the "High" risk elements, corrective action shall be at the discretion of the Assessor. The goal of Corrective Action is to eliminate all "High" risk elements in addition to attaining a minimum score of 80% for each audit section. The "Corrective Action Plan" contained within the Assessment file, shall be used to track all corrective action activity.

Subsequent follow-up activity, and subsequent Assessments to validate implementation of Corrective Action, shall be the responsibility of the originating Magna Group and Supplier Quality/Development Engineer, and must be initiated with the award of business, at the latest. If the Assessing Group does not source business with the Supplier, development activity shall become the responsibility of the sourcing Group/Division, as defined by their Business Rules.

It is at the discretion of the particular Magna Groups to base sourcing decisions on the final score attained. Each Groups' Business Rules shall define the selection criteria to be used. The aim of an Assessment is not simply the generation of a score. The ultimate aim is to identify and address areas of systemic failure driving undue risk to our Groups and Divisions, and therefore proper resolution and closure of "High" risk items, is critical.

Assessment results are for site-specific manufacturing facilities. If a supplier has two or more manufacturing locations, all locations require a separate Assessment.

Cover Sheet SUPPLIER ASSESSMENTDATE OF AUDIT:

SUPPLIER NAME:Supplier Contact Name:ADDRESS / CITY / STATESupplier Contact Postion:

Supplier Contact Phone: FAX NUMBER:E-Mail Address

REASON FOR/TYPE AUDIT:QUALITY / DELIVERY ISSUESNEW BUSINESSQUICK ASSESSMENTANNUAL ASSESSMENTFOLLOW-UP ASSESSMENTTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

CUSTOMERS (AUTOMOTOVE):Customer PPM (YTD Avge.)Previous Year PPM

Union FacilityYESIf Yes, Contract Expire:NO

TS 16949 CertificationCERTIFICATION EXPIRY DATEISO 9001:2000 CertificationCERTIFICATION EXPIRY DATEVDA/Other CertificationCERTIFICATION EXPIRY DATEISO 14001 CertificationCERTIFICATION EXPIRY DATE

YESYESYESYes

NONONONOHas Certification ever been revoked?YESIf Yes, State Reason:NOSupplier has Liability Insurance?YNCQI Compliant?N/AYesNoCQI #:Next Assessment:CQI #:Next Assessment:

PRODUCT FOCUS FOR ASSESSMENTMAGNA PLANTS SUPPLIED:FULL OPERATIONAL/QUALITY ASSESSMENT RESULTS(Optional Comments)Major Strengths of Organization:

1)2)3)

Major Concerns of Organization:1)2)3)

QUICK/TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTSLevel of Risk ObservedAssessment Completed By:

TYPE COMPLETED:Name:Completed by:Group:(enter total number of elements at each risk level)E-Mail:Phone:Approvals (if required by Group):QualityPurchasingProgram ManagementName:Title:Signature:

&F&A

Supplier Assessment DetailedSUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FORMNOTES:1. If a particular element is currently "N/A" (not applicable) and there is no current risk to Magna, 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 Magna, enter score of "2" for that element and add a note of explanation in the "Notes" section.OverallOrganization & ManagementAdvance Product PlanningQualityMaterial & LogisticsFacilities & ToolingPurchasingOperationsEngineering General Organization and Management StructureScore 000000000No.ITEM0123ScoreRiskNotesHigh RiskHigh RiskHigh RiskHigh RiskHigh RiskHigh RiskHigh RiskHigh RiskHigh Risk1Is the Management structure and Resource allocation sufficient to support all necessary disciplinesNo formal organization chart.Critical functions open.Organization chart in place.Some functions open - critical positions filledOrganization chart in place.Some functions open - critical positions filledPlans to secure additional resourcesOrganization chart in place and is currentAll functions filledSuccession planning in placeHigh799191210710842Workplace Health and Safety practices are in place and are consistently adhered toNo formal health & safety program in effectLack of guarding and other safetiesLack of cleanliness and organizationSafety program in placeInconsistent application of health & safety rulesLack of cleanliness and organizationSafety program in placeGenerally consistent application of health & safety rulesPlant is generally clean and organizedEvidence of strong health & safety program in placeConsistent application of health & safety rulesPlant is clean and organizedHigh3Does Management regularly communicate key operational and performance information to all employeesNo evidence of communication to employeesNo formal suggestion program in placeSome evidence of communication to employeesEvidence of customer requirements communicated to employeesConsistent evidence of communicationKey Customer performance indicators reviewed regularlyEmployee suggestion program in placeConsistent evidence of communicationKey Customer and internal performance indicators reviewed regularlyEmployee suggestion program in placeHigh4Management defines quality and performance objectives that promote Continuous Improvement. Key metrics should include all elements of the business and establish target values.No formal continous improvement program Lack of key performance metricsEvidence of continuous improvement programKey operational metrics identifiedEvidence of continuous improvement programKey operational metrics identifiedEvidence of regular management reviewsEvidence of continuous improvement programGoals defined in Business PlanKey operational metrics identifiedEvidence of regular management reviewsEvidence of Cost of Quality analysis & trackingHigh5Responsibilities and authority are defined and evidence supports effective employee trainingNo formal job descriptions at any levelLack of evidence to support trainingJob descriptions for all production functionsEvidence of training for production functionsJob descriptions for all levels of the organizationEvidence of training at all levelsJob descriptions for all levels of the organizationEvidence of training at all levelsTraining needs defined and trackedCross-training matrices availableHigh6Management has sufficient resources to effectively manage Customer Requirements. Planning includes sufficient resources that are trained and qualified and meet planning requirements?No awareness of customer requirementsNo evidence of training Lack of resources to support customerAware of customer requirementsSome level of support in place to supportAware of customer requirementsCustomer support availabel in language of Customer and available for 24 hrs as neededAware of customer requirementsCustomer support availabel in language of Customer and available for 24 hrs as neededSupport available on all shifts and supplier accounts for absenteeismHigh7Does Management conduct regular internal process audits (Layered Process Audits) that ensure compliance to Customer requirements?No formal LPA processNo formal processSome evidence of layered auditsFormal process in placeEvidence of audits completedFormal process in placeEvidence of audits completedEvidence of corrective action implementedEvidence of continuous improvement via LPAHigh8Process to ensure detailed Contract Review, including Design and Capability reviewNo formal process in placeNo formal processSome evidence of design or contract reviewsFormal process in placeEvidence of contract reviewsEvidence of review & understanding of Key/Critical characteristicsFormal process in placeEvidence of contract reviewsEvidence of review & understanding of Key/Critical characteristicsEvidence of Cross-functional teamsHigh9Does the organization have a process, charter or system to ensure the presence of acceptable global working conditions in all its operations?No formal processUnaware of requirementsNo formal process or procedureEvidence of internal systems to ensure health & safety, competitive wages, working conditions etcFormal process in place to ensure global working conditions internallyFormal process in place to ensure global working conditions internally and at supplier locationsHighTotal High Risk elements for General Organization and Management Structure = 9 Advanced Product PlanningScore No.ITEM0123ScoreRiskNotes1Does the Supplier have a process for managing Advance Quality activity and sufficient resources to manage activity?No formal or documented system in placeEvidence of sporadic reviewsNo design or manufacturing feasibility studiesDocumented system in placeEvidence of systemic reviewsProper feasibilities completedDocumented system in placeEvidence of systemic reviewsProper feasibilities completedEvidence of cross functional teamsDocumented system in placeEvidence of systemic reviewsProper feasibilities completedEvidence of cross functional teamsEvidence of regular, scheduled reviewsHigh2Does this Supplier's APQP Plan include scheduled formal Design Reviews, Management Reviews, Program Reviews, etc with their Customer and internally?No records of program reviewsDocumented procedure for program reviewssome records of completed program reviewsInconsistent or no tracking of open issuesDocumented procedure for program reviewsRecords of completed program reviewsOpen issues tracked Documented procedure for program reviewsRecords of completed program reviewsReviews include Customer, as appropriateOpen issues tracked and closed in timely mannerHigh3Does the Supplier have the capability to communicate Product design and Engineering Data with Suppliers and Magna?No electronic capability to communicate (eg. IGIS, Unigraphics, CATIA, ProEng etc.)Some electronic capabilityUnable to support all customers electronicallySome electronic capabilityUse outside/contract source, as necessaryUnable to support all customers electronicallyFull capability to communicate electronically with all existing customersHigh4Does this Suppliers APQP process / system include the review of the customers packaging requirements?No system or process to review packaging requirementsNo internal resources responsibleNo review of packaging unless driven by the cusomerLimited or no internal knowledge/resourcesProcess to ensure review and approvel of packagingSufficient internal knowledge/resourcesProcess to ensure review and approval of packagingInternal resources with sufficient knowledgeCustomer approval obtainedHigh5Does the Supplier conduct equipment validation and performs run at rate in preparation for production?No system or process to validate equipmentNo evidence of run at rate studiesEvidence of equipment validation prior to start of productionNo evidence or limited evidence of run at rate studies to verify meeting capacity requirementsEvidence of equipment validation prior to start of productionEvidence suggests run at rate conducted in most situations, but lack of formal processProcess to ensure equipment validationRecords verify completion of run at rate studiesEvidence of customer sign-off/approvalsHigh6Does the Supplier have a documented 'Safe-Launch' plan? Does it include pre-first-shipment containment and verification before any product is shipped?No system to ensure verification of material at start of program launchEvidence of some containment in place, but only on a limited basisSupplier only implements containment when directed by the CustomerProduct containment plan is defined as part of program launch processProduction control plans used - no pre-launch plansProduct containment plan is defined as part of program launch processPre-launch control plans in placeFailure modes analyzed and corrective action implementedHigh7Does the Supplier have a defined process to control and react to changes impacting upon Product Realization? Are key process characteristics identified and capability tracked?No formal system to track changes and ensure changes are managed through entire systemChanges are tracked but lack formal system to ensure documentation is updated, accordinglyNot all changes are officially managedFormal change management system in place All changes assessed for impact on product and systemAll affected documentation updated Formal change management system in place All changes assessed for impact on product and system - use cross functional approachAll affected documentation updated KPC's identified and capability is trackedHigh8Mistake-proofing and error-proofing used to control critical characteristics and ensure product integrity?No focus on mistake proofing or error preventionFocus is on detection and reliance on operatorsHeavy reliance on operators, but some focus on automated error detectionSignificant focus on error prevention High use of mistake proofing in manufacturing processSignificant focus on error prevention High use of mistake proofing in manufacturing processMistake proofing driven by FMEA and RPN reductionHigh9Does this Suppliers Process flow diagram match the actual production flow laid out for this facility?Process Flow Diagram and actual production flow do not matchProcess flow and manufacturing basically match, but some out of sequence steps notedProcess flow and manufacturing process match but inspection points out of sequenceProcess flow diagram matches actual production flow of materials and manufacturing process, including all inspection pointsHigh10Does this Suppliers FMEA's and Control Plan's match the Process Flow diagram?No linkage between FMEA's, Control Plans and Process FlowsProcess Flow and Process Control Plan match, but no obvious link to FMEA'sProcess Flow and Process Control Plan match and evident match to FMEA'sProcess Flow and Process Control Plan match and evident match to FMEA'sEvidence of periodic reviewsHigh11Does the FMEA include critical and/or significant characteristics as well as all supplier identified Key Characteristics?No tracking of critical and special characteristicsCriticial characteristics are trackedControl is focussed on product only, not processCritical/Special characteristics tracked consistently on FMEA, PCP, PFD, Instructions etc.Required statistical controls in placeCritical/Special characteristics tracked consistently on FMEA, PCP, PFD, Instructions etc.Required statistical controls in placeControl is on both product and processHigh12Are Supplier FMEA's risk numbers for severity, occurrence, and detection based on historical / statistical data?Total or significant lack of risk numbers on FMEA'sRisk numbers assigned on FMEA's, but no evident linkage to customer requirementsRisk numbers assigned on FMEA'sRisk numbers linked to customer requirementsRisk numbers assigned on FMEA'sRisk numbers linked to customer requirementsEvidence that risk numbers are revised, based on historical or statistical data, or issuesHigh13Are the mistake proofing opportunities initiated to reduce high RPN numbers noted on the control Plan?No linkage between RPN's and mistake proofingEvidence of improvements to mistake proofing, but no visible link to RPN'sEvidence of link between addition of mistake proofing and reduction plan for RPN'sEvidence of link between addition of mistake proofing and reduction plan for RPN'sFocus on RPN reduction for both product and processHigh14Does the control plan identify all gauges and test equipment required for inspection? Including test frequency?No reference to gauges, test equipment or test frequency on control plansControl plans identify required gauging, test equipment and frequenciesOnly minor exceptions notedControl plans identify required gauging, test equipment and frequenciesNo visible exceptions notedControl plans identify required gauging, test equipment and frequenciesNo visible exceptions notedFrequencies are adjusted based on issues and historical dataHigh15Are Work Instructions for all employees affecting product quality, including for repair and re-work operations available and posted?No work or operator instructions posted, or significant lack of instructionsWork instructions posted or available for operatorsNo rework/repair instructionsWork instructions posted or readily availableRepair/rework instructions posted or availableInstructions do not match level of Control PlansWork instructions posted or readily availableRepair/rework instructions posted or availableInstructions match level of Control PlansHigh16Are controls in place to verify process start up and job change-over?No start up procedures definesNo evidence of start up controls - such as first-piece, containment etc.Start up process definedFirst-off samples available at all appropriate operations - some exceptions notedStart up process definedFirst-off samples available at all appropriate operations - no exceptions notedStart up process definedFirst-off samples available at all appropriate operationsEvidence of first piece approval/signatureHigh17Does the Supplier have a process to track PPAP performance with the Customer and from Suppliers?No tracking system in placeSystem in place to track Customer PPAP submissions Evidence of some PPAP samples availableSystem in place to track Customer PPAP submissions Evidence of all PPAP samples availableSystem in place to track Customer and supplier PPAP submissions Evidence of all PPAP samples availablePPAP issues properly addressedHigh18Does this Supplier have a process / system in place to ensure that all design requirements / engineering specifications are communicated to their supply base? No documented system of communication in placeProcess in place to communicate design requirements and engineering specifications to suppliersMinor exceptions notedProcess in place to communicate design requirements and engineering specifications to suppliersNo exceptions notedProcess in place to communicate design requirements and engineering specifications to suppliersSuppliers sign off/acknowledge requirementsNo exceptions notedHigh19Is there a process to ensure Tier Supplier product is controlled to ensure compliance? Are all requirements for safety critical characteristics clearly communicated to all sub-suppliers?No documented system to qualify suppliersNo documented system to communicate critical characteristicsNo documented system to qualify suppliersSystem in place to communicate critical characteristics to suppliersDocumented system to qualify suppliersSystem in place to communicate critical characteristics to suppliersDocumented system to qualify suppliersSystem in place to communicate critical characteristics to suppliersRecords of supplier auditsRecords of design/characteristic reviewsHighTotal High Risk elements for Advance Product Planning = 19 QualityScore No.ITEM0123ScoreRiskNotes1Is this Supplier ISO or TS registered ? Are they current with their surveillance audit schedule?Supplier has no certifications at presentSupplier has minimum of ISO certificationLacks TS/VDA certificationSupplier has all applicable certifications, including ISO, TS, VDA, CQI - as applicableAll required certifications are current, including ISO, TS, VDA, CQI etc.No current open corrective actions from last auditHigh2Is this Supplier current to their internal audit schedule including corrective actions for all findings?No formal internal schedule of reviewNo formal schedule of reviewSome evidence of completed internal auditsFormal schedule of review over 12 month periodEvidence of audits completed on scheduleFormal schedule of review over 12 month periodEvidence of audits completed on scheduleAll corrective actions completed on timeHigh3Does this Supplier have a process / system in place to ensure that all product documentation reflects the current revision level?Multiple examples of posted documents not current to revision level for selected part(s)Documented system in placeSeveral documents posted not current to revision levelDocumented system in placeOnly one or two documents posted not current to revision levelDocumented system in placeNo examples of outdated documents foundHigh4Does the Supplier have an effective Problem Resolution process? Does the system address customer and internal issues?Noticeable lack of formal processFocus only on external issuesMultiple open issues and/or late responsesNo cross-functional approachDocumented procedureIssues addressed in timely mannerLack cross-functional approachDocumented procedureTimely response to internal & external issuesCross functional approach usedDocumented, formal problem resolution process that includes:- both external (customer) and internal issues- cross-functional team approach- thorough 8D/5 Why process in place- timely response to all issues- corrective action drives update to all related documentsHigh 5Does this Supplier have a process / system to identify and segregate non-conforming material at each phase of the production process? Suspect material not clearly identifiedSuspect material at production cells, with high potential for mixLack of effective containment processSuspect material identified but not properly segregatedSome evidence of containment in placeLack of or poor system to verify final disposition of all suspect materialSuspect material clearly identified & segregatedEffective containment process internally, at suppliers and at customer(s)No evidence of signatures detailing disposition and/or lack of secure containment areaAll suspect/defective material clearly markedSuspect material segregated in secure areaSuspect material clearly accounted for, with appropriate disposition and signaturesProcedures define proper containment activities internally, at suppliers and at customer(s)High6Is there a system to identify, qualify and control Measuring and Test Equipment?Lack of or poorly managed systemMultiple fixtures/gages with outdated calibrationGages/fixtures not referenced on Control PlansFormal, but manual system in placeVery few, or no fixtures/gages past dueFixtures and gages referenced on control plansFormal automated system in placeSystem generates reminders of calibration dueNo evidence of past due calibrationsFixtures/gages referenced in control plansEvidence of effective GR&R on all gagesFormal automated system in placeSystem generates reminders of calibration dueNo evidence of past due calibrationsFixtures/gages referenced in control plansEffective MSA system in place High7Are Operators trained and qualified for any required measurement and tests, including use of appropriate statistical techniques? Are there posted instructions detailing inspection, test, SPC, work requirements and re-work instructions at every station?Lack of instructionsLack of operator training documentationMissing, or no SPC where requiredGage instructions in place, as requiredEvidence of some training recordsSome use of SPC, but possibly inconsistentOperator gage instruction in placeOperator training records available and currentSPC data current, where requiredRe-work gage instructions missing or not postedOperator gage instruction in placeOperator training records available and currentSPC data current, where requiredAdequate re-work gage instructions available at all production and re-work stationsHigh8Are all inspection gauges and fixtures stored in a manner that protects them from environmental and / or handling / storage damage?Evidence of gages/fixtures inappropriately stored and/or susceptible to damageNo designated storageStorage has been designated but is insufficientMedium to high potential for damageAdequate storage for gages/fixturesSome, but minimal opportunity for damageDedicated storage for gages/fixtures, when not in useStorage prevents damage or abuseHigh9Does the supplier have sufficient internal capability and equipment to ensure customer performance and specification criteria can be met?Significant lack of internal capabilityHigh reliance on external sourcesSufficient resources to monitor most dimensional and material specificationsSome reliance on external sourcesInternal resources can support dimensional and material requirementsSome performance or specialty requirements are sourced externallyInternal resources can support dimensional, material and performance requirementsOnly specialty requirements are sourced externallyHigh10Does this Supplier have a process / system to measure and track external quality performance with their customers? No formal system in placeSome customer performance measures in placeSome customers have no performance dataSystem in place to track external qualityAll customers are tracked but, some customer performance data not currentSome corrective actions not addressed in timely mannerDocumented system in place to measure external qualityPerformance data is current and includes appropriate PPM and incident data, at minimumCorrective actions in place to address under performance issuesHigh11Does the supplier have a record retention process that ensures all necessary test, inspection and safety critical records are retained for period as defined by the Customer?No formal document retention systemDocument retention system in placeRecords not easily retrievableNo system to ensure timely destruction of documents, as per legal or customer requirementsRecords not protected from damageDocument retention system in placeRecords easily retrievableNo system to ensure timely destruction of documents, as per legal or customer requirementsRecords protected from damageDocument retention system in placeDocuments are protected from damage and readily accessibleProcess ensures destruction as per scheduleRecords include both paper and data recordsHigh12Has this Supplier identified all of the special processes that will be required? Will any of these special processes require outsourcing? Are additional controls in place to manage outsources services?No, or minimal control over out-sourced processesSub-tier suppliers have at least partial evaluation prior to sourcingNo regular performance reviewsSub-tier suppliers evaluated prior to sourcingPerformance of sub-tiers monitored regularlyNo detailed records of review of requirements prior to sourcingSub-tier suppliers are evaluated prior to sourcingPerformance of sub-tiers monitored regularlyRecord of detailed review of requirements with sub-tier suppliers, prior to sourcingHighTotal High Risk elements for Quality = 12 Materials and Logistics ScoreNo.ITEM0123ScoreRiskNotes1Does the Supplier have a documented system to ensure receipt of Customer schedules and requirements?No formal system to ensure receipt/validity of customer releasesSystem in place to receive customer orders, but no verified back up systemNo regular tracking of delivery performanceSystem in place to receive and verify customer ordersRegular monitoring of delivery performanceBack up system for receiving orders but system is not tested regularlySystem in place to receive and verify customer ordersRegular monitoring of delivery performanceBack up system for receiving orders and system is tested regularlyHigh2Does the supplier have a formal process to plan material flow into and through the plant? Are materials and components stored, packaged and transported so as to protect them from dirt and damage?Poor inventory management systemNo apparent flow to material movementHigh risk of damage to materials & componentsMaterial flow sufficient, from receiving through manufacturing and shipping Evidence ofsome material congestion in placesNo apparent FIFOPotential for material damageGood material flow throughout manufacturing facility - no apparent bottlenecksMaterial identified at all stages of the processSystem in place to monitor inventory levelsLacking evidence of effective FIFOGood material flow throughout manufacturing facility - no apparent bottlenecksMaterial identified at all stages of the processSystem in place to monitor inventory levelsPlans in place to reduce inventoryEvidence of effective FIFO in placeHigh3Does this Supplier have a material lot traceability system? No, or very minimal traceability evidentTraceability on finished product but lacking on raw materials and componentsFull material traceability on raw and finished materialsMaximum period of traceability is >8 hours, or one shiftTraceability indicated on shipping labelsFull material traceability on raw and finished materialsMaximum period of traceability is 50% of supplier's overall businessSupplier has full technical capability to support Magna businessMagna represents >35% but