DLAI 4155

DLAI 4155.2

DLSC-LEQ

17 Feb 99

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION FOR DLA ICPs

A. REFERENCES

1. DLAD 4155.2, Quality Assurance Program for the Defense Logistics Agency

Inventory Control Points (ICPs), 10 Oct 97.

2. DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition, March 15 1996 and DoD 5000.2-R, Mandatory

Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated

Information System (MAIS) Acquisition Programs.

3. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

4. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).

5. DoD 4140.1-R, DoD Materiel Management Regulation.

6. DLAD 4105.1, Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive.

7. DLAD 4155.7, Quality Assurance Technical Development Program (QATDP) for

DLA Inventory Control Points.

8. DLAI 4155.7, The Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point (ICP) Quality

Assurance Technical Development Program (QATDP) Course Catalog.

9. DoD 4120.3-M, Defense Standardization Policies and Procedures.

10. DLAD 4105.20, Product Verification Program for Inventory Control Points.

11. DLAD/DLAI 4155.24, Product Quality Deficiency Report Program.

B. PURPOSE

1. This instruction implements the DoD Directives/Regulations and DLA Directives that

relate to the Quality Assurance functional area. It provides recommended general

procedures for the planning and implementation of Quality Assurance (QA) functions at

DLA ICPs. The procedures contained in this instruction are not mandatory and are

offered as guidance only.

2. The basic objective of this instruction is to provide guidance to DLA ICP QA

personnel including QA specialists, engineers, chemists, pharmacists and other people

performing (or being trained to perform) functions that improve the quality of materiel.

3. The guidance is provided to achieve quality management practices and procedures,

which will:

a. Recognize and remove those conditions, which contribute to, or cause deficient

materiel.

b. Assure product quality during the full range of logistics actions (including

provisioning, planning, contracting, production, maintenance, and storage) rather than to

detect poor quality after receipt by a DLA customer.

c. Assure service quality during the full range of logistics actions including planning,

contracting, and performance of the service.

d. Assure an adequate contract quality data package to provide for satisfactory contractor

and Government inspection performance.

e. Achieve efficient feedback and use of quality and reliability data from all responsible

sources.

f. Achieve efficiency and economy in administration of quality programs in support of

Provisioning, Planning, Contracting, Maintenance, Supply, Storage, and Commercial

Activities.

C. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE.

This instruction is applicable to DLA ICPs involved with item and contract management

of DLA managed items.

D. DEFINITIONS

1. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL). The quality level which, for the purposes of

sampling inspection, is the limit of a satisfactory process average.

2. Acceptance. The act of an authorized representative of the Government by which the

Government assumes for itself, or as agent of another, ownership of existing and

identified supplies tendered or approves specific services rendered, as partial or complete

performance of the contract on the part of the contractor.

3. Action Point. A focal point(s) identified within each Component (Military Service,

Defense Agency, or GSA) responsible for receiving PQDRs from other Components, and

for investigation and resolution of a reported product quality deficiency, including

necessary collaboration with support points. Only an action point is authorized to

transmit a deficiency across Component lines to a support point in another Component.

4. ANSI. American National Standards Institute.

5. Bid Sample. Sample to be furnished by the bidder to show the characteristics of the

product offered in the bid.

6. Category I Deficiency. A report of a critical defect which may cause death, injury, or

severe occupational illness; could cause loss of, or major damage to, a weapon system;

could critically restrict the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or

which could result in a production line stoppage.

7. Category II Deficiency. A report of a product quality deficiency, which does not meet

the criteria set forth in Category I.

8. Certificate of Conformance (CoC). A contractor's written statement, when authorized

by contract, certifying that supplies or services are in conformance with contract

requirements.

9. Certificate of Quality Compliance (CoQC). A contractor's certification that provides

specific detailed information and objective evidence that material offered for acceptance

meets all contract and specification requirements.

10. Commercial Item. Any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily

used for non-governmental purposes, and that has been (offered to be/will be/or) sold,

leased, or licensed to the general public. Additional definition with detail on

modifications is provided in FAR, subpart 2.101.

11. Contract. Any type of agreement or order for the acquisition of supplies or services. It

includes awards and notice of award; contracts of a fixed-price, cost, cost-plus-fixed-fee,

or incentive type; contracts providing for the issuance of job orders, task orders, and

delivery orders thereunder; letter contracts; and purchase orders.

12. Contract Administration Office (CAO). An office of DLA, or of a Military Service, or

of FDA, USDA, or USDC, engaged in the performance of contract administration

services, including QA, on Government contracts with private industry. Included in this

definition are all geographic and in-plant DoD component organizations engaged in

performance of field contract administration services.

13. Contract Quality Assurance (CQA). A function by which the Government determines

whether a contractor has fulfilled his contract obligations pertaining to quality and

quantity. This function can be accomplished at source and/or destination and is related to

and generally precedes the act of acceptance.

14. Counterfeit Material/Unauthorized Product Substitution (CM/UPS). The

misrepresentation of products furnished by contractors to the Government, including

those items referred to as "bogus" parts, counterfeit parts, assemblies with unapproved

components, and products with unauthorized remarking/over-branding.

15. CM/UPS Disclosure. A written or verbal allegation that includes the possibility that

contractors have furnished counterfeit or unauthorized product substitutions to the

Government after the Government has signified its acceptance. Customer/Depot

complaints are not CM/UPS disclosures.

16. Critical Application Item. An item which is essential to the preservation of life in

emergencies (e.g., parachutes, marine life preservers) or essential to end item or system

performance, the failure of which would adversely affect the accomplishment of a

military operation.

17. Critical Nonconformance. A nonconformance that is likely to result in hazardous or

unsafe conditions for individuals using, maintaining, or depending upon the supplies or

services; or is likely to prevent performance of a vital agency mission.

18. Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC). An organizational entity of

DLA, comprised of a headquarters staff and a field organization of geographic and plant

components, established to provide uniform field contract administration services for

Government contracts with private industry. As used herein, the term applies specifically

to Contract Administration Service (CAS) field components, including DCMC Districts

(DCMDs), and area offices.

19. Deviation. A written authorization, granted after contract award and prior to

manufacture of an item, to depart from a particular performance or design requirement of

a contract, specification, or referenced document, for a specific number of units or

specified period of time.

20. DLA Quality Assurance Program. A program designed to assure integrity, quality,

and reliability of DLA purchased/managed supplies and services through the integration

and coordination of all actions, which contribute to the delivery of supplies or services of

the specified quality and reliability.

21. Examination. An element of inspection consisting of investigations, without the use

of specific laboratory applications or procedures, of supplies and services to determine

conformance to those specified requirements, which can be determined by such

investigations. Examination is generally nondestructive and includes, but is not limited

to, visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, gustatory, and other investigations, simple physical

manipulation, gaging, and measurement.

22. Exhibit. The item reported as being deficient, or a sample item which represents the

reported deficient condition, which can be analyzed to determine the possible cause of the

defect.

23. First Article Testing and Approval. The testing and/or examination of items submitted

by a contractor prior to regular production on a contract or purchase order followed by

the preparation/evaluation of attendant test reports.

24. Flight Safety Critical Aircraft Part (FSCAP). Any part, assembly, or installation

containing a critical characteristic whose failure, malfunction or absence could cause a

catastrophic failure resulting in loss, or serious damage to the aircraft, or an

uncommanded engine shutdown, resulting in an unsafe condition.

25. FSCAP Critical Characteristic. Any feature through the life cycle of a FSCAP, such

as dimension, tolerance, finish material or assembly, manufacturing or inspection

process, operation, field maintenance or depot overhaul requirement, which if

nonconforming, missing or degraded could cause the failure or malfunction of the

FSCAP.

26. Focal Point. A designated element or individual responsible for receiving and

entering data for the Customer/Depot Complaint System and the Quality Evaluation

Program.

27. Inspection. The examination and testing of supplies or services (including, when

appropriate, raw materials, components, and intermediate assemblies) to determine

whether the supplies and services conform to technical requirements.

28. ISO. International Organization for Standardization.

29. Maintenance Instructions. Applicable technical document (contract specifications,

Military Services' technical publications, or other published documents) with instructions

that will be utilized to perform required maintenance of an item.

30. Major Nonconformance. A nonconformance, other than critical, that is likely to result

in failure, or to materially reduce the usability of the supplies or services for their

intended purpose.

31. Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR). A requirement that is submitted

by a Military Service to an ICP to perform logistics functions (including purchasing) for

items that are not managed by that ICP.

32. Minor Nonconformance. A nonconformance that is not likely to materially reduce the

usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose, or is a departure from

established standards, having little bearing on the effective use or operation of the

supplies or services.

33. Nonconformance. A departure from the requirements specified in the contract,

specification, drawing or other approved product description.

34. Nonconforming Material. Any item, part or product with one or more characteristics

which depart from the requirements in the contract, specification, drawing, or other

approved product description.

35. Off-the-Shelf Item. An item produced and placed in stock by a

distributor/manufacturer before receiving orders or contracts for its sale. The item may be

commercial or produced to military/federal specifications or description.

36. Originating Point. An Activity which finds a product quality deficiency and reports it.

37. Packaging. The processes and procedures used to protect material from deterioration

or damage during storage or transport. It includes cleaning, drying, preserving, packing,

marking, and unitization.

38. Post-award Conference. Meeting conducted by the Government to fully familiarize

the contractor with the terms and conditions of the contract, to clarify any

misunderstandings, and to discuss unsatisfactory quality history.

39. Product Conformance. The subset of Quality Assurance which deals with assessment

of post-manufacturing or post-service actions. Product Conformance includes the

assessment of usability, conformance to purchase requirements, investigation of

deficiencies, test and evaluations, determination of readiness impact, and product

quality/usability feedback systems.

40. Product Sample. Sample of the item required by the solicitation, which is submitted

as part of an offeror's technical proposal. The sample permits visual examination of the

offered item for the purpose of determining quality of workmanship and conformance to

design and/or performance requirements.

41. Product Quality Deficiency. A defect or nonconforming condition detected on new or

newly reworked Government-owned products, premature equipment failures, and

products in use that do not fulfill their expected purpose, operation or service due to

deficiencies in design, specification, manufacturing, and workmanship.

42. Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR). A report, message, or Standard Form

(SF) 368, Product Quality Deficiency Report, prepared and processed in accordance with

DLAD 4155.24, Product Quality Deficiency Report Program.

43. Product Verification Program. A DLA program that establishes policy and procedures

for the arranging, monitoring, and reporting of the results of, product testing and product

examination/inspection. See DLAD 4105.20.

44. Qualified Manufacturers List (QML). A listing of manufacturer's facilities that have

been evaluated and determined to be acceptable based on the testing and approval of a

sample specimen and conformance to the applicable specification. The QML includes

appropriate products, processes, or technology identification, and test reference with the

name and address of the manufacturer's plant.

45. Qualified Products List (QPL). A listing of products that have met the qualification

requirements stated in the applicable specification, including appropriate product

identification and test of qualification reference with the name and plant address of the

manufacturer and distributor, as applicable.

46. Quality. The composite of materiel attributes including performance, features, and

characteristics of a product or service to satisfy a given need.

47. Quality Assurance. A planned and systematic pattern of all actions necessary to

provide adequate confidence that adequate technical requirements are established,

products and services conform to established technical requirements, and satisfactory

performance is achieved.

48. Quality Assurance Letters of Instruction (QALIs). Information or instruction provided

to the activity responsible for Government CQA actions at source or destination for the

purpose of assuring the integrity of DLA- procured products and services. QALIs may

specify the type and extent of Government inspection of selected product/process

characteristics or they may provide the CAO with adverse quality history on the item

and/or contractor.

49. Quality Assurance Provisions (QAPs). As used herein, includes all requirements for

quality and reliability assurance, both administrative and technical, which are included

directly or by reference in ICP prepared purchase requests, solicitations, and resulting

contracts. Specifically, those provisions include, but are not limited to: the place of

Government inspection and acceptance; appropriate contract quality requirements; first

article; bid samples; inspections and tests; sampling plan; verification testing; calibration

requirements; and supplier certifications, where necessary to provide the user with an

item of the required quality.

50. Quality Audit. A systematic examination of the quality related actions and decisions

in order to independently verify or evaluate the operational requirements of a quality

program or the specification or contract requirements of the product or service.

51. Quality Control. A function of management relative to all procedures, inspections,

examinations, and tests required during contracting, receipt, storage, and issue that are

necessary to provide the user with an item of the required quality.

52. Quality Program. Program which is developed, planned, and managed to carry out,

cost-effectively, all efforts to effect the quality of materiel and services from concept

through validation, full-scale development, production, deployment, and disposal.

53. Reliability. Probability that materiel will perform its intended function for a specified

period of time under stated conditions.

54. Reporting Activity. The activity forwarding a Product Quality Deficiency Report to

DLA. This may or may not be the activity that prepared the Product Quality Deficiency

Report, and may be either the originating point or screening point.

55. Request for Deviation. The formal document submitted by the contractor to the

Government for the purpose of requesting departure from a specific performance or

design requirement of a contract, specification, or referenced documents.

56. Request for Waiver. The formal document submitted by the contractor to the

Government for the purpose of requesting acceptance of designated nonconforming

supplies or services.

57. Screening Point. An activity, within the component originating the Product Quality

Deficiency Report, which is required to determine the action point; transmit Product

Quality Deficiency Reports for action; monitor outstanding reports; and receive

responses.

58. Storage Standards. Documents containing mandatory instructions for the inspection,

testing, and/or restoration of items in storage, encompassing storage criteria, preservation,

packaging, packing and marking requirements, and time-phasing for inspection during

the storage cycle to determine the materiel serviceability and the degree of degradation

that may have occurred. In the case of shelf life items, storage standards are required to

be prepared by the managing wholesale ICP or other responsible organization for Type II

shelf life items only. They are used at the wholesale and retail level to determine if Type

II shelf life items have retained sufficient quantities of their original characteristics and

are of a quality level which warrants extension of their assigned time period, and the

length of the time period extension.

59. Support Point. An activity that assists the action point, as requested, by conducting

and providing results of a special analysis or investigation pertinent to the correction and

prevention of a reported product quality deficiency.

60. Technical Maintenance Standard (TMS). Applies to a uniform format to designate the

specific requirements for technical data (see DLAR 4185.1, Technical Data Requirements

for Logistic Support) that will be utilized in the performance of required maintenance of

an item.

61. Testing. That element of inspection that determines the properties or elements,

including functional operation of supplies or their components, by the application of

scientific principles and procedures.

62. Waiver. A written authorization granted after contract award to accept a configuration

item or other designated item which, during production or after having been submitted for

inspection, is found to depart from specified requirements, but nevertheless is considered

suitable for use "as is" or after repair by an approved method.

The following are a list of abbreviations:

ACO Administrative Contracting Officer

ADD Allowable Degree of Deviation

AID Acquisition Item Description

AIS Automated Information System

AQL Acceptable Quality Level

ASAP As soon as Practical

CAGE Commercial and Government Entity

CAL Contractor Alert List

CAO Contract Administration Office

CAS Contract Administration Services

CDCs Customer/Depot Complaints

CDCS Customer Depot Complaint System

CM/UPS Counterfeit Materiel/Unauthorized Product Substitution

CO Contracting Officer

COR Contracting Officer's Representative

CoC Certificate of Conformance

CoQC Certificate of Quality Compliance

CQA Contract Quality Assurance

CTDF Contract Technical Data File

DCMC Defense Contract Management Command

DSCC Defense Supply Center Columbus

DSCP Defense Supply Center Philadelphia

DSCR Defense Supply Center Richmond

DD Defense Depot

DESC Defense Energy Supply Center

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

DISC Defense Industrial Supply Center

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

DLAD Defense Logistics Agency Directive

DMSB Defense Medical Standardization Board

DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service

ICP Defense Supply Center

DSM Defense Standardization Manual

E-mail Electronic Mail

ESA Engineering Support Activity

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FSC Federal Supply Class

FY Fiscal Year

GIDEP Government Industry Data Exchange Program

GSA General Services Administration

IDP Individual Development Plan

IPE Industrial Plant Equipment

IRPOD Individual Repair Parts Ordering Data

LPTD Lot Tolerance Percent Defective

MAR Master Account Record

MDWL Missing Data Work List

MI Mandatory Inspection

MIS Management Information System

MIPR Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request

NIIN National Item Identification Number

NNPP Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

NPM Nuclear Plant Materiel

NSN National Stock Number

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PASS Pre-Award Survey System

PCO Procurement Contracting Officer

PID Procurement Identification Description

PIIN Procurement Instrument Identification Number

PO Purchasing Office

PQDR Product Quality Deficiency Report

PVP Product Verification Program

PVT Product Verification Testing

PTC Product Testing Center

PWS Performance Work Statement

QA Quality Assurance

QALI Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction

QAPs Quality Assurance Provisions

QAR Quality Assurance Representative (In-Plant)

QAS Quality Assurance Specialist

QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

QATDP Quality Assurance Technical Development Program

QDR Quality Deficiency Report (now PQDR; see above)

QEP Quality Evaluation Program

QLL Qualified Laboratory List

QPL Qualified Products List

QSMV Quality Systems Management Visit

QSR Quality Systems Review

RCS Report Control Symbol

ROD Report of Discrepancy (now SDR; see below)

SALT System for Analysis of Laboratory Testing Results

SDR Supply Discrepancy Report

SF Standard Form

SPA Specification Preparing Activity

SPC Statistical Process Control

TMDE Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment

TMS Technical Maintenance Standard

TQM Total Quality Management

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDC United States Department of Commerce

VSMF Visual Search Microfilm Files

W/D Waiver/Deviation

E. PROCEDURES

1. GENERAL QA PROCEDURES

a. Personnel performing quality functions at the ICPs play a vital role in supporting

DLA's missions. The ICPs support the contracting and materiel management missions in

assuring that items and services procured and delivered to our customers are of the

requisite quality intended, and conform to customer specified requirements. Personnel

performing these functions must be technically qualified in the products and services

under contract. In addition, they must: fully understand and apply modern QA

techniques, including the use of automated information systems; manage assigned

responsibilities in a competent manner; and work cooperatively with other ICP elements,

HQ DLA, Military Services, other Government agencies and industry in achieving

customer satisfaction.

b. Process Control Philosophy:

(1) Process control philosophy, principles, and practices have been

incorporated into QA procedures and this instruction. The instruction

consists of guidance to systematically accomplish processes that

continuously improve DLA's products and services. The assignment of

"cradle-to-grave" responsibilities to personnel, who have been

empowered to serve as Product Quality Assurance Managers for the

life cycle of the item, creates an environment in which the employees

can make improvements in the quality of products and services.

Guidance on the use of Statistical Process Controls, Manufacturing

Process Controls, Development of Statistical Techniques, and other

contractual requirements provides the methods and means for

contractors to control and measure their processes to improve the

quality of their product. Basic statistical methods for measuring and

improving the processes are used by managers of items/groups of items

(Commodity Business Unit/Application Group/Product Center Chiefs)

to adjust the QA program. This guidance regarding feedback of

essential information for continuous improvement is provided in

sections on Quality History, Quality Evaluation Program, and

Deviations and Waivers. Personnel should continuously review their

processes and strive to make them more efficient and effective.

(2) All personnel have a significant affect upon the quality of products

and services. Personnel performing quality functions should learn other

functions and understand the effects that their work has upon quality.

These individuals should be proactive and provide assistance to other

areas to improve their processes. Specific areas that should be

recognized are as follows:

(a) Method of Support. While personnel performing quality functions should be a part of

the determinations of method of support planning, there may be occasions where QA

review has not been sought. When a less-than-optimal method of support has been

chosen, that may (is) affect(ing) the quality of the item, the appropriate personnel should

be notified with full rationale for a recommended change. If the recommendations are not

accepted and changes are not made, the person performing quality functions should take

actions to use tools they have at their disposal to help improve quality (i.e., request the

Product Verification Manager to perform quality audit or special inspections).

(b) Technical Data Package Accuracy. Upon review of Consumable Item Transfers or

Logistics Reassignments or during the normal course of QA functions, personnel should

also perform a quick review of the technical aspects of the technical package. If data is

missing or requires revision, the appropriate personnel should be notified.

QA requirements, personnel should also perform quick review of the packaging and

marking requirements. If data is missing or requires revision, the appropriate personnel

should be notified.

(d) Solicitation and Contract Accuracy. Upon review of purchase requests and Missing

Data Work Lists (MDWLs), personnel should also perform a quick review of the contract

requirements. If data is missing or requires revision, the appropriate personnel should be

notified.

(e) Diminishing Manufacturing Sources. During the course of their work, personnel may

learn of situations that may affect the future ability to procure items. Whenever this is

apparent, the appropriate personnel should be notified.

(f) Source Selection/Award of Contract. During contract review or when it is found that a

less-than-optimal contractor has been chosen, that may (is) affect(ing) the quality of the

item, the appropriate personnel should be notified with full rationale for a recommended

change (i.e., termination/ modification of the contract). If the recommendations are not

accepted and changes are not made, the person performing quality functions should take

actions to use tools they have at their disposal to help improve quality. (This includes

notifying the QAR through issuance of a QALI, performing QSMVs, or requesting that

the Product Verification Manager perform quality audit or special inspections).

(g) Backorders. During the course of their duties, personnel may be able to effect

backorder status. All actions should be taken to assist the Item Manager in the prevention

or resolution of the backorder. If Quality Assurance contract requirements (i.e., tests or

inspections) can be modified or deleted, thus reducing the lead-time, and other quality

assurance tools can be used, this should be done. If items are on backorder, expedited

release of PQDR exhibits or test items may relieve the situation.

(h) Disposal of excess stock. During the course of their duties, personnel may learn of

situations about the quantity of stock, i.e., where stock is no longer needed, an item is

obsolete, or when stock may be needed in the future. When this occurs, the information

about the items should be provided to the Item Manager for their appropriate action.

(i) Acceptance/authorization of returned stock. The Item Manager should be notified of

any knowledge that may affect their decisions to accept or reject items offered for return.

(j) Special Program Requirements. During the course of their duties, personnel may learn

of customers' materiel needs or requirements. When this occurs, the information about

the items and customers should be provided to the Item Manager for their appropriate

action.

2. CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND COMMODITY TRAINING

a. This area serves to provide guidance to personnel concerning their role in career

development and commodity training programs. Some Quality Assurance references are

as follows:

(1) DLAD 4155.7, Quality Assurance Technical Development Program

(QATDP) for DLA Inventory Control Points.

(2) DLAI 4155.7, Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point

(ICP) Quality Assurance Technical Development Program (QATDP)

Course Catalog.

(3) DoD 5000.52-M, Acquisition Career Development Program.

(4) DLAR 1430.12, Civilian Employee Development and Training.

(5) DLAR 1430.5, DLA Intra-Agency Recurring Training Courses.

b. Career development is a dual responsibility of management and the individual. While

management is expected to plan for the development of each career employee by

providing on-the-job training (OJT) and off-the-job assignments, the ultimate value to be

realized from a career training plan is determined by the careerist participating in the

program. Self-development is an important key to individual success and, in turn, results

in organizational success.

c. Compliance with DLAD 4155.7 is mandatory. DLAD 4155.7 and DLAI 4155.7

provide policy and procedures for the technical development and certification of ICP

personnel in QA systems skill and commodity skill areas.

d. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), has a major impact

upon employees seeking opportunities to advance within the acquisition workforce.

Quality Assurance has been designated as a functional subset of the acquisition position

categories. This provides the opportunity for more professional development, education,

training, and career opportunities. All QA personnel should be aware of the opportunities

within the acquisition workforce in planning their careers.

e. Supervisors of personnel performing quality functions will assure that an IDP is

established for each employee under his/her supervision. The IDPs should include:

(1) QA systems training that provides personnel the knowledge and

skills in Quality Assurance and related programs, functions, policy, and

procedures.

(2) Commodity skill training that provides personnel product-oriented

technical knowledge and skills necessary for effective performance of

QA actions in the commodity. The commodity skill areas must be

determined based on job assignments, both current and planned.

f. Personnel performing quality functions will:

(1) Complete assigned training satisfactorily.

(2) Make training and developmental needs known to their supervisor.

(3) Assist in the development and preparation of the IDP.

(4) Willingly take those training courses scheduled for them in order to

increase their skills and capabilities in the QA discipline and to increase

their overall self-development. Personnel in the day-to-day course of

their jobs may observe areas where a training course or courses would

enhance their capability to perform assigned functions. In these

situations the person performing QA functions should make the need

known to his/her supervisor.

g. DLAR 1430.5 assigns responsibilities and establishes procedures for providing

specialized commodity training to personnel from the ICPs, DDs, and DCMDs. Such

training will be oriented toward product use and the examination and testing of product

characteristics.

h. The provisions of DLAR 1430.12 must be followed in scheduling and accomplishing

all training.

i. The Career Development Division in the Office of Civilian Personnel at each field

activity will incorporate training needs extracted from IDPs into the activity training plan

prescribed by DLAR 1430.12. The Career Development Division staff is available to

assist in developing IDPs and identifying training sources. All DD Forms 1556, Request,

Authorization, Agreement, Certification of Training and Reimbursement, must be

forwarded through the Career Development Division. The use of the form is mandated.

3. DLA QUALITY DAYS

a. Recurring Quality Days are held to pro-vide a means for determining and resolving any

problems in the area of Quality and Reliability Assurance and to exchange information.

All DLA Quality elements provide representatives to participate.

b. Quality Days will convene at least semi-annually, or more frequently as required.

c. Attendance by DLA ICP personnel to represent their ICP who have knowledge and

work in the area of quality assurance is required. Attendance by the DLA ICP

Commander/Deputy Commander is also desired.

d. Official travel is authorized to attend Quality Days or participate in assigned projects.

Costs will be funded by the representative's organization.

e. Quality Day representatives will:

(1) Participate, and designate representatives to participate, in working

groups to resolve specific problems.

(2) Host Group meetings when requested by the chairperson and

establish working groups as necessary. The host of the Quality Day, or

an appointed representative, will be responsible for administrative

duties, such as notification of meetings, agenda preparation, and

preparation/distribution of minutes.

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS (QAPs)

a. The contracting process plays a significant role in determining the ultimate quality of

products and services delivered to DLA customers. Inadequate contracts, technical data

packages, and irresponsible contractors are the sources of most quality problems.

Through sound management of quality and reliability, personnel are able to recognize

and remove the conditions, which contribute to, or cause, the delivery of deficient

materiel. QAPs provide the means to prevent or identify and correct nonconforming

materiel prior to the acceptance action. This is important because recourse by the

Government after materiel acceptance is both difficult and expensive. b. Personnel

performing QA functions support the contracting function by assuring that ICP contracts

contain, by reference or direct incorporation, definitive and current QAPs. Normally,

QAPs are applied through automated means as soon as possible after the items is

assigned to the ICP. However, in some cases this is not possible and QAPs must be

assigned by a manual review of the individual contracting action. Periodic reviews of

QAPs assigned in the automated system will be accomplished to assure that QAPs

assigned in this manner are both current and definitive.

c. ICPs will establish a priority system to be followed when assigning or updating QAPs.

In establishing priorities, personnel shall maximize the use of the contract listing

forecasts, as prepared by item management/contracting systems. To the maximum extent,

QAPs should be predetermined and entered in advance of contracting so that manual

reviews are held to a minimum. Priority will be given to assigning or updating QAPs in

descending order as follows: QAPs impacting readiness and/or priority requisitions,

QAPs associated with pending contracts for critical application items, products and

services in support of mobilization, and QAPs for contracts of a high dollar value.

d. Personnel performing this function must:

(1) Develop QAPs for new items entering the inventory and for items

transferred from the Military Services/GSA to DLA for management.

(2) Revise existing QAPs on current DLA managed items whenever

they are found to be inadequate.

(3) Provide QAP information to appropriate contracting elements

through documents or automated systems.

e. Factors, which must be considered when assigning QAPs, are discussed herein.

Guidance provided is appropriate for use at all ICPs for the determination and assignment

of QAPs. The FAR, subpart 46.203, describes three classifications to be used in

determining the appropriate contract quality requirement. These classifications are

technical description, complexity, and criticality. Before attempting to assign QAPs,

personnel will determine where the item (supply or service) falls within these

classifications. By recognizing these classifications, QAPs can be tailored to fit the

specific needs of the item. Guidance for tailoring is as follows:

(1) Item Technical Description.

(a) DLA manages and procures supplies and services for which the item technical

description is either developed by industry for general use (commonly known as

commercial items), or the item is developed by industry or Government for Government

use (known as Military-Federal or Government drawing/specification items).

(b) Item description data for a commercial item may range from a drawing with

comprehensive supporting data to a manufacturer's part number alone. For commercial

items, the Government shall not specify any specific contractor quality assurance system.

with comprehensive supporting data, including Military-Federal specifications. When

Military-Federal specification items are involved, the specification will be reviewed to

assure the assigned QAPs are definitive. They should identify or specifically reference all

the examinations and tests required to determine if the item being purchased conforms to

the technical requirements of the specifications. Particular attention should be given to

Government testing requirements, specifically with regard to who will perform the tests,

the time frame of testing, and the costs associated with the tests. If it is determined that

the specification QAPs are missing or inadequate, action will be taken, in coordination

with the SPA, to develop or revise them. When pending procurements will not allow time

for formal coordination, telephonic coordination should be effected, followed by written

confirmation. Documentation concerning recommendations for additions, deletions, or

changes to specifications will be forwarded to the ICP standardization activity or

appropriate individuals performing standardization functions. Formal recommendations

will normally be submitted on a DLA Form 339, Request for Engineering Support, or DD

Form 1426, Standardization Document Improvement Proposal. Formal agreements

between the ICPs and SPAs, which authorize the ICP to make additions or corrections to

specifications, without the specific approval of the SPA, are encouraged.

(d) Some supplies managed and procured by DLA fall somewhere between the

commercial item and the Military-Federal classifications. For instance, an Original

Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) may be contracted to design a system meeting certain

requirements. Frequently, the subsequent design is not addressed by Government

specifications and the Government may not have obtained full data rights from the OEM.

Therefore, the drawings containing the technical descriptions are proprietary to the OEM

and the Government has access only to the OEM's assigned part number or "limited

rights" drawings, where the technical data contained thereon cannot legally be used for

procurement purposes. [1] When the only technical description available is a

manufacturer's part number and current information does not indicate that any further

data can be obtained (e.g., data proprietary and OEM refuses to provide additional

information), actions should be taken to request additional data through the ICP's

Technical personnel/element. [2] When the only technical item description available is

contained on proprietary "limited rights" drawings, personnel will not use that

information in determining QAPs, if such use violates the limited rights restrictions.

(2) Complexity. This item classification has to do with the complexity

of the item's quality characteristics. Items are either categorized as

complex or noncomplex as described in FAR subpart 46.203(b). In

making complexity determinations, personnel should base their

decision on a review of the total available technical data. Complexity

determinations must not be based upon the item's nomenclature alone.

(3) Criticality of Application. Type of application deals with the

criticality of the use of the item, i.e., critical or non-critical. FAR

subpart 46.203(c) describes an item as having a critical application

when its failure could injure personnel or jeopardize a vital military

mission. DLAD/DLAI 3200.1 further defines these items as being

essential to the preservation of life in emergencies or essential to end

item accomplishment of a military mission. Military Services are

responsible for designating critical or non-critical application. In many

cases, even otherwise adequate technical descriptions do not contain

information required to make a criticality determination. When the

Military Service has not designated the criticality of an item and

available technical data does not clearly indicate a non-critical

application, personnel will request such a determination from the

responsible ESA. On the other hand, if an item is designated as having

a critical application, but available information clearly disputes this

fact, a request for verification from the responsible ESA should be

initiated. In no case will Military Service designated critical application

items be changed to non-critical without the specific approval of the

ESA. If an item has multiple applications, only one being critical, it

will still be treated as having critical application in determining the

appropriate QAPs.

(4) Analyze the quality history of the item. In developing QAPs,

personnel must consider all available information, such as: quality

complaints, record of preaward surveys, postaward orientation

conferences, special inspection requirements, as well as any other

factors bearing on the item or contracting action. The Quality

Evaluation Program (QEP), or other systems for retaining quality

history, should be consulted for information on the item.

(5) Check for combined product and service contracting action.

Personnel should be aware of the increasing tendency for individual

contracts to include requirements for the acquisition of supplies and

services, i.e., maintenance, storage, and mobilization support. In these

cases, assure the QAPs provide for both the service and the product.

(6) Determine and develop the appropriate requirements for the QAP.

When developing QAPs, personnel shall consider each of the

following:

(a) Select and include a specific type of contract quality requirement based upon the

item's technical description, complexity, and criticality, which is mandatory on all QAPs.

This shall be done in accordance with FAR, subpart 46.2, DoD FAR supplement, subpart

246.2, and DLAD 4105.1, Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive, subpart 46.2.

(b) Determine the applicability and use of DLAD 4105.1 clause 52.246.9001,

Manufacturing Process Controls and In-process Inspections, when a need exists to

strengthen the control of product quality.

to verify that materiel or services conform to requirements. Include complete information

regarding inspections/tests, including an appropriate sampling plan, to be conducted.

(d) Determine and designate the place of performance, either source or destination, for

Government CQA and acceptance actions. Place of performance is mandatory for all

QAPs.

(e) Establish/develop requirements and procedures for First Article testing, or bid

samples, as required.

(f) Determine appropriateness of a Certificate of Conformance (CoC) provision.

(g) Determine need for, and develop, requirements for Certificate of Quality Compliance

(CoQC).

(h) Determine need for, and develop, requirements for Statistical Process Controls.

(i) Determine whether warranty provisions should be included. f. Personnel assigning

QAPs will:

(1) Determine if definitive QAPs have been provided by the

responsible Engineering Support Activity/Specification Preparing

Activity (ESA/SPA). If specific requirements have been requested by

the ESA/SPA, analyze these for applicability and appropriateness.

Requirements that are not appropriate for the situation should be

clarified with the respective ESA/SPA.

(2) Use their product technical and service knowledge. This is

necessary since each individual must have a technical knowledge of

their managed products and services before QAPs can be realistically

developed and assigned. Otherwise, assignment of QAPs is largely an

arbitrary determination, which can ultimately lead to quality problems

or a needless expenditure of resources.

(3) Review technical data. Analyze the item description, statement of

work, drawings, specifications, and any other technical data provided

or referenced in the item requirements. When personnel cannot

determine QAPs, due to the inadequacy or unavailability of technical

data, clarification from the ICP's Technical person/element assigned to

the item and/or the appropriate ESA/SPA will be obtained in

accordance with DLAR 3200.2, Engineering Support for Procurement.

During the review of the technical data, any corrections that are

required to the technical requirements should be brought to the

attention of the ICP's Technical person responsible for the item.

(4) Provide computer inputs, in support of ICP initiatives to automate

contracting operations (i.e., record the determination in the CTDF and

place rationale in the QEP).

5. PACKAGING QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

a. Assuring that proper QAPs are recommended does not stop with the product itself. The

QAPs must also include the Quality Assurance aspects of the packaging and marking.

b. Personnel performing packaging functions at the ICPs will determine the level of

packaging required to provide adequate protection for the item at the least cost, from time

of contracting to use.

c. Personnel performing quality functions will:

(1) Assure definitive Quality Assurance requirements for packaging are

included in ICP contract documents consistent with the technical

packaging requirements. The Quality Assurance requirements include

defining inspection levels, sampling plans, types of defects for the

packaging and marking, and, when appropriate, required packaging

tests.

(2) Review, determine, develop and assign Quality Assurance

requirements for packaging.

(3) Develop Quality Assurance requirements for packaging in advance

of actual contracting according to established priorities and guidance.

Such requirements will be entered into automated systems to the

maximum extent possible.

(4) Incorporate Quality Assurance requirements for packaging

furnished by the Services and/or other Government agencies in contract

documents. If established requirements are ambiguous or are not

definitive, or if the latest packaging/inspection/test technique, method

or technology can be substituted, clarification will be requested from

the appropriate technical activity.

(5) Consider packaging historical data, such as discrepancy/deficiency

reports and other user feedback data, in the development of Quality

Assurance contracting requirements for packaging.

6. CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

a. The contractor is responsible for product quality and for offering only conforming

materiel to the Government for acceptance. The basic statements of the contractor's

responsibility for quality, and the level of quality control that must be maintained, are

contained in the contractual quality requirement.

b. The contract quality requirement shall be the first QAP requirement to be determined.

This will assist in selection of other QAP requirements.

c. A comprehensive review of all technical data will be conducted by personnel

performing quality functions prior to determining the type of quality requirement for a

specific item. If necessary, ICP Technical personnel/element, and the Military Service

ESA/SPA personnel, with specialized knowledge of the product should be consulted to

assist in assigning an appropriate contract quality requirement.

d. The criteria given in FAR subparts 46.202 and 46.203, DFARS subparts 246.202 and

246.203, and DLAD 4105.1 subpart 46.2, shall be used as guides in selecting an

appropriate type of contract quality requirement. As shown therein, the item's technical

description, complexity, and criticality are the primary determining factors as to which of

the four requirements should be applied. When circumstances warrant, a requirement

different than that arrived at through use of the criteria may be specified, however, the

decision to deviate from the criteria must be founded upon a sound technical base.

(1) When a Military Service ESA has designated a specific contract

quality requirement for an item, personnel should consider this in

making their determination. However, if technical data is available and

doesn't support the Service's designation, assignment of a contract

quality requirement, which fits the needs of the item, should be made.

Prior to assigning a less stringent quality requirement, the ESA should

be informed, as they may have other information, which supports their

designation.

(2) When the only technical item description available is "limited

rights," or proprietary, the item should be treated as having a Military-

Federal item technical description.

e. Far Part 46 identifies four types of contract quality requirements and describes the

purpose of each. The four types are:

(1) Contracts for Commercial Items (FAR subpart 46.202-1). When

acquiring commercial items (see FAR Part 12), the Government shall

rely on contractors' existing quality assurance systems as a substitute

for Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance

unless customary market practices for the commercial item being

acquired include in-process inspection. Any in-process inspection by

the Government shall be conducted in a manner consistent with

commercial practice.

(a) Per FAR PART 12-208, the Government shall rely on the contractor's existing quality

assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection and testing before tender for

acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial item being acquired

include in-process inspection.

(b) For commercial items determined to be safety-critical or critical application that have

had quality problems in the past, alternative inspection procedures may be included in an

addendum to the solicitation/contract. Because the Government must rely on contractors'

existing quality assurance systems, it becomes essential that past performance evaluation

regarding quality be performed to assess the proposal before award. This may be done

through market research of the quality of the commercial item (for new vendors), review

of quality history, i.e., QEP, or through the inclusion of evaluation factors (FAR subpart

52.212-2) in the solicitation.

statement QAP shall be used, similar to the following: "5.1 Product Conformance. The

products provided shall meet the salient characteristics of this commercial item

description, conform to the producer's own drawings, specifications, standards, and

quality assurance practices, and be the same product offered for sale in the commercial

market. The government reserves the right to require proof of such conformance."

(2) Government Reliance on Inspection by the Contractor, commonly

known as the Contractor Inspection Clause (FAR subpart 46.202-2).

(a) Except as specified in (b) of this section, the Government shall rely on the contractor

to accomplish all inspection and testing needed to ensure that supplies or services

acquired at or below the simplified acquisition threshold conform to contract quality

requirements before they are tendered to the Government (see 46.301).

(b) The Government shall not rely on inspection by the contractor if the contracting

officer determines that the Government has a need to test the supplies or services in

advance of their tender for acceptance, or to pass judgment upon the adequacy of the

contractor's internal work processes. In making the determination, the contracting officer

shall consider [1] The nature of the supplies and services being purchased and their

intended use; [2] The potential losses in the event of defects; [3] The likelihood of

uncontested replacement or correction of defective work; and [4] The cost of detailed

Government inspection.

(3) Standard Inspection Requirements, (FAR subpart 46.202-3).

(a) Standard inspection requirements are contained in the clauses prescribed in FAR

subparts 46.302 through 46.308, and 46.310, and in the product and service specifications

that are included in solicitations and contracts.

(b) The clauses referred to in (a) of this section [1] Require the contractor to provide and

maintain an inspection system that is acceptable to the Government; [2] Give the

Government the right to make inspections and tests while work is in process; and [3]

Require the contractor to keep complete, and make available to the Government, records

of its inspection work.

(4) Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements. When a Higher-Level

contract quality requirement is warranted, the applicable ICP

clause/QAP should be used. Whenever a Higher-Level requirement is

used, FAR subpart 52.246-2, Inspection of Supplies Fixed-Price, must

also be used. The Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements

clause/QAP gives contractors a blank to fill in to indicate their

preference for a particular standard(s). The options are for the

contractor to:

(a) Implement a documented quality system in accordance with the appropriate

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)9000/American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) or American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) Q90 standard, or;

(b) Implement a system that meets other recognized industry (not ISO/ANSI/ASQC)

standards, or;

have previously been determined by the Government to be insufficient for its purposes.

(d) When requesting a higher-level contract quality requirement, personnel may: [1]

Specifically cite the inclusion of ISO 9003, for situations where use of a commercial

standard is appropriate, but ISO 9002 is considered too stringent. [2] Request to modify

existing contracts (that were written when MIL-I-45208 and Mil-Q-9858 were still used)

to permit use of the appropriate ISO 9000/Q90 standard instead of MIL-I-45208 and

MIL-Q-9858. This should only be done if the contractor and Government mutually agree

to the change. This will ordinarily be accomplished at no cost to either party. In revising

these old contracts, you are cautioned not to use ISO 9003 in place of a MIL-I-45208

system, since these are not equivalent systems. (The latter is more stringent as a stand-

alone document.) Use of ISO 9003/Q9003 is only appropriate where conformance to

requirements is to be assured solely at final inspection and test. [3] Tailor the ISO 9002

requirements to a level sufficient to meet the contract needs to avoid imposing excessive

requirements on the contractor. Tailoring the requirements may be appropriate when:

soliciting for items that were previously satisfied with MIL-I-45208 and MIL-Q-9858

standards and higher-level is not required; there is evidence that no responses will be

received for solicitations that require ISO 9000 or equivalent; or, a solicitation is released

with the ISO requirement and no responses are received. However, specifying that the

process control requirement of ISO 9001 or 9002, or other industry standards is

inapplicable in any procurement should be carefully weighed, since the intent of

eliminating MIL-I-45208 and MIL-Q-9858 was to substitute process controls and non-

government standards in place of military-unique quality assurance systems.

(e) During evaluation of higher-level contract quality requirements, personnel should

remember that any quality system proposed by the contractor needs to provide for the

Government's ability to audit/validate its capabilities to ensure the safety and satisfaction

of our customers. Additionally, during any pre- and/or post-award conferences the

contracting officer should stress that the quality system proposed shall satisfy the needs

of the individual procurement. It should be clear that the contractor retains quality

responsibility for the supplies or services furnished under the contract and their

conformance to the contract requirements.

(f) It may be appropriate to evaluate the contractor's proposed quality system in the

context of the technical evaluation portion of a best-value source selection. Refer to FAR

subpart 15.6, DFARS subpart 215.6, and DLAD subpart 15.6. If evaluating a quality

system is part of the technical evaluation, then personnel performing quality functions

should perform the evaluation of quality as the subject matter experts in ISO (or similar)

validated and/or certified systems.

7. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT CQA

a. Government Contract Quality assurance (CQA) must be designated either at source or

destination and is mandatory on all QAPs. Government CQA actions at source normally

consists of a review of the contractor's processes (including the contractor's contract

quality system) that may be coupled with a technical inspection of the supplies. Technical

inspection (as to form, fit, or function) is the examination and/or testing of supplies to

determine their compliance with contract requirements. Government CQA actions at

destination will normally consist of kind, count and condition verification, unless a

Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI) requesting specific technical inspection is

provided to the activity at destination. ICPs requesting technical inspection at DLA

Distribution Depots should be aware of, and arrange for funding for, the cost of

inspection.

b. Prior to determining the place of performance for Government CQA actions, the

required QAPs and appropriate contract quality requirements should have been

determined. This is necessary because these determinations could affect, or possibly

mandate, where CQA actions will be performed.

c. CQA at source is mandatory for some specific categories of items, based upon the

critical nature of their application. Items so designated must be inspected at source

because it is necessary to provide additional assurance, through on-site Government

verification, that material conforms to requirements.

(1) For FSCAP items, Government CQA actions, including source

inspection, are mandatory with no exceptions.

(2) For other critical items, Government CQA actions shall usually be

performed at source.

(a) Exceptions to this policy shall generally be made for off-the-shelf items, or in those

situations where previous acquisition or quality history based on objective evidence

permits us to anticipate the receipt of fully-acceptable supplies. In these cases, a

determination may be made to perform Government contract quality assurance actions at

destination (this is the normal action to take). Objective evidence of good quality history

includes such indicators as laboratory testing results from Government-owned or

Government-contracted labs; previous acquisition experience of a sufficient

volume/period, during which there were no reported product defects/first article

failures/recurring waiver requests; prior quality certification under a Qualified Products

List or Qualified Manufacturer List program; and the like. This determination shall be

documented in contractor history files by item.

(b) When source inspection is still required for a critical application item, and the item is

acquired from a sole source that will not permit quality assurance at source, the matter

should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis to provide adequate consideration to the

Government for the added cost of performance of the necessary technical quality

assurance at destination, at a designated Government/commercial laboratory, or at the

using activity. Conversely, if the supplier insists on quality assurance at source for non-

critical or noncomplex items which are normally assigned for quality assurance at

destination, or for those critical application items that are exceptions to the source

inspection requirement, this matter should be negotiated with adequate consideration

flowing to the Government, on a case-by-case basis for the added cost of performance of

unnecessary Government quality assurance at source.

inspection; e.g., first article inspection, in-process inspection, and/or requirements for

special testing or detailed inspection. Contracts should be assigned for contract quality

assurance at destination if verification as to type and kind, quantity, and condition is

sufficient.

(d) Some sole source suppliers refuse to allow CQA at source. If this occurs and there is

insufficient information available (attempts to obtain additional technical data have been

unsuccessful) for the performance of technical inspection during subsequent functions of

supply, the reliance must be placed upon the supplier's objective evidence of quality

conformance (also true of non-critical items).

(3) CQA at source will be specified for all Individual Repair Parts

Ordering Data (IRPOD) items. IRPOD items are identified when ICPs

procure and manage materiel for use in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion

Program (NNPP) and the Nuclear Plant Material (NPM) parts/spares

program. Maximum confidence is required that this materiel conforms

to requirements since it is used in critical shipboard and land systems.

In certain cases, QA personnel must extract salient technical data

contained in the IRPOD documents and have it incorporated into

contracts as Quality Assurance Provisions. IRPOD documents may also

contain pages that specify Mandatory Inspections (MIs) to be

performed by the Government to assure that the materiel conforms to

requirements. These MIs shall not be incorporated into the contract,

since QA personnel will forward the applicable MIs as part of a QALI

to the appropriate CAS office(s). CoC will not be incorporated in any

contract for IRPOD items.

(4) In addition to the above situations, CQA at source is mandatory if

any of the following situations are applicable:

(a) Performance at any other place would require uneconomical disassembly or

destructive testing. (This should be determined through review of the technical data and

knowledge of inspection requirements of the item.)

(b) Considerable loss would result from the manufacture and shipment of unacceptable

supplies, or from the delay in making necessary corrections. (A review of the past history

(QEP should be used, if available) will indicate if shipment of unacceptable supplies has

been provided in the past.)

(d) Performance at any other place would destroy, or require the replacement of, costly

special packing and packaging.

(e) Government inspection during contract performance is essential. (This might be

indicated through Military Service designating QAPs.)

(f) It is determined for other reasons to be in the Government's interest. (In general, when

a technical inspection is necessary to assure that an item conforms to requirements, and

this inspection cannot be adequately conducted at destination.)

(g) At the current time, FAR subpart 46.402 also specifies that [CQA at source is

mandatory when] " (e) A higher level contract quality requirement is included in the

contract,(see FAR subpart 46.202-4); and (g) Supplies requiring inspection are destined

for points of embarkation for overseas shipment (unless the contracting officer

determines in advance that necessary inspection functions can be provided at such

points". A change to this policy has been requested, but DoD activities have obtained a

deviation to this policy that was issued by the USD (A & T) Defense Procurement

Director on November 6, 1997. This deviation deleted mandatory Government CQA at

source rules (e) and (g) from FAR subpart 46.402. The reason for the deletions were to

remove barriers, and allow procuring activities to determine that CQA at destination can

be utilized, which is the normal route to take.

d. CQA at destination should be requested if the item can be properly inspected at

destination. In addition to requesting the destination inspection on the contract, the person

performing the quality functions shall make arrangements with the activity that is to

perform the inspection; a QALI may be used to request the inspection. Appropriate

instructions and funding should be provided. The decision should be based on the

technical makeup of the item, availability of test equipment, presence of capable

inspection personnel at destination, and the absence of any mandatory source inspection

requirements.

(1) Purchases of commercial, non-critical items described by only a

part number, should normally be assigned for destination inspection.

(2) Contracts should require CQA at destination if verification as to

kind, count, and condition is sufficient, and the item has a noncritical

application.

(3) When the required testing equipment is located at destination,

inspection will be assigned at destination.

(4) In general, if an item does not require mandatory source inspection,

attempts to obtain additional technical data have been unsuccessful, and

available data is not sufficient to specify technical inspection

characteristics, then destination inspection should be assigned.

(5) A guide (Figure 7-1) has been developed that may be used to give

indications of where GSI might be placed. This only gives an indication

and should not be relied upon for conclusive determinations without

reviewing other available information.

GSI DECISION GUIDE

(THIS LISTING IS NOT INCLUSIVE OR MANDATORY)

KEY FOR NO GSI = GOOD QUALITY HISTORY

GSI IS NOT RECOMMENDED WHEN QUALITY HISTORY IS GOOD PLUS ANY OF THE

FOLLOWING:

OEM

Part Number Buy

10 Awards + PVT

Long Term Contracts

Non Critical + Sole Source + OEM

First Article Approved (follow on)

QSL/QML/QPL

Test/Inspect Capability at Destination

Commercial Item (Off The Shelf)

Shelf Life Items + Application

Purchases from Distributors

Prime Vendor Program

Non-complex

Low dollar value

Certificate of Conformance (CoC)

Third Party

Contractor Self Qualification

Higher Level Quality Requirement (FAR Change in process)

Overseas shipment without special transportation, packaging or handling

Extended Warranties with Repair & Replacement

Off The Shelf (Military)

Other Government Activities (i.e., GSA, FDA, DOT...)

New Contractor + Good Commercial Market Research

FIGURE 7-1

KEY FOR GSI = NO OR UNSATISFACTORY QUALITY

HISTORY

GSI IS RECOMMENDED IF THERE IS NO OR UNSATISFACTORY QUALITY HISTORY PLUS

ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Flight Safety Critical

Safety Critical

Life Support Equipment (i.e., Egress, Parachute...)

Level 1 Subsafe

Navy Nuclear Propulsion

Mission Essential (excluding partial capability)

Explosive Safety

Ammunition

Critical Support Equipment

New Contractor + No Commercial Market Research

Special Packaging

Special Test Requirements

First Article/Initial or Production Lots

Poor Delivery Performance

Financial Instability

Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) Weapons/Equipment

Hazmat

Public Law (USDA, FDA, etc.)

High Reliability Items

Low Quantity + Complex + Military Application

Unique Processes (i.e., Clothing & Textile, Composite...)

Application of Item (i.e., M-16...)

First Time Breakout

New Technology

FIGURE 7-1

e. With the exception of those items requiring mandatory source inspection, an item's

quality history may indicate that a change in place of performance is warranted.

(1) When an item has been designated for source inspection on

previous contracts and the quality history has been consistently good,

consideration should be given to specifying destination inspection.

(2) When an item's quality history is unsatisfactory, and destination

inspection has previously been identified, consideration should be

given to requiring source inspection and, where necessary, issuing a

QALI requiring MIs for the item.

f. Place of Acceptance. Ordinarily the place of acceptance is assigned at the same

location as the place of performance for CQA actions. Items assigned source inspection

will normally be accepted at source, and items assigned destination inspection will

normally be accepted at destination. However, it should be recognized that there are

instances where inspection can be at source and acceptance at destination.

8. CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE (CoC)

a. A CoC is a contractor's certification that the supplies are of the quality and quantities

specified, and are in all other respects in conformance with contract requirements.

b. Usually, CoC is only used in certain instances in lieu of Government source inspection.

However, when quality history (i.e., QEP), if available, indicates that the quality of the

item is consistently good, and it is only necessary to obtain a statement of certification,

CoC may be used in contracts which assign inspection at destination. A CoC shall not be

used for acceptance of supplies, nor as the basis for payment.

c. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, the CoC clause may be inserted into

solicitations and contracts where:

(1) Small losses would be incurred by the Government in the event of

defects and/or;

(2) Knowledge of the supplier's reputation and performance provides

assurance that defective supplies would be replaced without contest.

d. The Contracting Officer's decision to include the CoC clause in a contract is the first of

two steps required before a contractor is allowed to use CoC in lieu of Government

source inspection. The second step involves the cognizant CAO giving the contractor

written authorization allowing the contractor to ship supplies under CoC. This additional

step is necessary because:

(1) The CoC clause may be used in competitive solicitations where the

successful contractor is unknown prior to award and his reputation

and/or performance may not meet the criteria specified above.

(2) It gives the final approval authority to the Government element

normally having the most current information concerning the

successful contractor's overall performance record and production

capability.

e. Personnel performing this function shall assist the Contracting Officer in determining

whether the CoC should be included in DLA procurements.

(1) In most cases, the Contracting Officer's decision on the use of the

CoC clause is primarily based on information concerning the potential

supplier(s) rather than on the nature of the item(s) involved. For this

reason, it is imperative that the Contracting personnel are kept informed

of any adverse quality information associated with suppliers. When

determined appropriate, based on a record of unsatisfactory quality

performance, personnel will recommend against the use of the CoC

clause in contracts awarded to a specific contractor. Also it is

recommend not to use CoC in initial solicitations involving a new

item(s).

(2) There are cases where the nature of the item (or class of items)

should play an important role in the Contracting Officer's decision

concerning the use of the CoC clause:

(a) In the case of IRPOD item procurements, personnel will, as a minimum, extract the

MIs contained in the IRPOD document and forward them under a QALI with the CAO's

copy of the contract. The MIs must be performed at source. The CoC clause should not

be used with IRPOD items.

(b) If an item (or class of items) requiring Government inspection at source has a record

of quality problems, personnel shall review all available quality information and, if

determined appropriate, recommend to the Contracting Officer that the CoC clause not be

used in procurements for that item (or class of items). Where there are several potential

suppliers of an item with a record of quality problems, and these problems are associated

with only a few such suppliers, it is recommended not to use the CoC clause in

procurements involving the specific suppliers, rather than not using it for the item.

particularly weapon system items, CoC should not be used in solicitations without a

careful review of quality data and a conscious decision being made.

f. Personnel shall perform contract reviews, and provide quality history to the CAO with

appropriate recommendations regarding the CoC, when the contractor is new or has

adverse quality history. The CAO should also be alerted of any adverse item quality

history.

9. CERTIFICATE OF QUALITY COMPLIANCE (CoQC)

a. A CoQC is a contractor's certification that provides specific detailed information and

objective evidence that the materiel offered for acceptance meets all contract and

specification requirements. CoQCs can only be used on safety-critical and other critical

items that have had significant quality problems in the past.

b. CoQC requirements are not the same as CoC requirements. The CoC enables

contractors to submit a certification that supplies are of a quality and quantify specified in

lieu of Government inspection being performed. The CoQC is a certification that does not

affect the performance of inspection. The CoQC is an additional requirement to the

performance of Contractor inspection that provides a detailed certification of the specific

inspection and tests required, and the actual results achieved.

c. The CoQC may be used for both source inspected contracts and destination inspected

contracts. In the case of destination-inspected material, the certificate (or a copy) must

accompany the shipment. For source-inspected material, the original certificate must be

available for a period of 4 years. When requested by the contracting officer the

Contractor shall make the certificate available for review. A copy may (but need not)

accompany the shipment.

d. When objective quality evidence is needed to assure that the supplied materiel meets

all contract and specification requirements of items, a requirement for a CoQC should be

requested. This requirement should also be considered for inclusion when a certified test

report for materials is needed, whether the anticipated contractor is, or is not, the

manufacturer of the material.

e. DLAD 4105.1, part 46.3, and the contract clause at paragraph 52.246-9000, contain

details of the use of COQC. The contract clause "shall be inserted for solicitations and

contracts for safety-critical (i.e., Class 3 threaded items) or for critical items that the

ESA/SPA, and/or Center Quality/Technical element [personnel] have identified as

experiencing significant quality problems in previous procurements". The following

conditions must be present:

(1) There is a product specification, drawing or standard designated in

the Procurement Item Description (PID) and,

(2) The ESA/SPA and/or Center Quality/Technical personnel have

determined that objective evidence in the form of a specific COQC is

needed to ensure that the material offered by the supplier meets all

contract and specification requirements.

(3) The contract clause at 52.246-9003, Measuring and Test

Equipment, shall be used in solicitations and contracts which contain

both the CoQC and the standard inspection clauses.

(4) The contract clause at 52.246-9004, Product Verification Testing

(PVT) shall be used in solicitations and contracts which contain the

CoQC clause and which call for inspection at source.

f. Personnel performing quality functions will:

(1) Determine the need for objective evidence. CoQC should be

requested when the materiel being acquired is critical or safety-critical,

and:

(a) The ESA requests that the CoQC clause be used.

(b) The quality of materiel can be readily ascertained through the use of CoQC.

(2) Determine if an additional, extraordinary, review (in excess of QAR

routine review) is required, i.e., by the ESA, ICP QA person, and

laboratory.

(a) If the ESA has requested review of the CoQC, the Contracting Officer should be

advised to include this submission requirement in the contract.

(b) Determine if verification of the certification is necessary and request the Product

Verification Manager to make the necessary arrangements for the testing.

(3) Determine whether the DLAD 4105.1 clauses for Measuring and

Test Equipment and Product Verification Testing are required.

(4) Input CoQC requirements in advance of contracting into the

automated systems to the maximum extent possible.

(5) Review all (source and destination inspection) contracts where the

CoQC clause has been requested, to assure that the CoQC has been

included.

10. MANUFACTURING PROCESS CONTROLS

a. An additional contract quality requirement on Manufacturing Process Controls and In-

Process Inspections is identified in subpart 46.202-3(90) of DLAD 4105.1, Defense

Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD). This requirement is to be used when stronger

control of manufac-turing operations and inspections is needed, e.g., controlled processes

and operations are essential, or the item contains product characteristics that cannot be

inspected at a later stage. Specific criteria for use of this requirement for clothing and

textiles are provided in subpart 46.202-3(90) of the DLAD.

b. Personnel performing quality functions will:

(1) Determine the need for stronger manufacturing controls for specific

items or contractors. The DLAD 4105.1 clause should be requested

when:

(a) The ESA requests that the stronger control be exercised.

(b) Previous, or potential, nonconformances indicate that stronger control is necessary.

ensure the integrity of the product.

(2) Input the manufacturing process controls, DLAD 4105.1 clause,

into the automated systems to the maximum extent possible.

(3) Evaluate requests for waiver of the contract requirement and

document justifications to change the requirement.

11. BID SAMPLES

a. An invitation for bid may require bidders to furnish a sample of the product offered.

This sample is called a "Bid Sample." Bid samples are only used to determine the

responsiveness of the bid and are not used to determine ability to produce the required

items.

b. Bidders will be required to submit bid samples when there are characteristics of a

product that cannot be adequately described in the applicable specification or purchase

description. The reasons for requesting a bid sample must be justified, documented, and

included in contract files unless the requirement for a bid sample is specifically required

by the formal specification applicable to the contract.

c. Personnel responsible for quality will determine the requirement for bid samples and

take the following actions:

(1) Determine if there are characteristics of a product which cannot be

adequately described in the applicable specification or purchase

description.

(2) When a bid sample is required, identify the following:

(a) Number of units required and, where appropriate, the size of the bid samples.

(b) Characteristics for which bid samples will be tested or evaluated (if testing is

required, arrange for the testing of samples through the Product Verification Manager).

(d) Whether or not the approved bid sample will be used as a production standard.

(3) Coordinate with the SPA when bid samples are not considered

necessary despite a specification bid sample requirement.

(4) Justify and document the justification in the contract file.

(5) Notify the Contracting Officer of test results and results of

evaluation in a timely manner.

(6) Return bid samples to bidder, through the Contracting Officer,

when requested by the Contracting Officer, or arrange for disposal of

the bid samples.

12. FIRST ARTICLE REQUIREMENTS

a. FAR, subpart 9.3, sets forth the policy, implementing instructions, and contract clauses

with respect to First Article testing and approval. First Article testing and approval

consists of the testing and/or examination of items submitted by a contractor prior to

regular production on a contract or purchase order followed by the preparation/evaluation

of attendant test reports. First articles may be tested at the contractor's facility or at a

Government facility, depending upon contractual arrangements. Except in unusual

procurements, First Article clauses are called for in production contracts only.

b. Expanded First Article is another technique for examination of items. This is a

procedure where adaptability of a new specification to mass production methods is

validated at the same time that supply quantities are being acquired. First Article approval

tests are performed, participated in, or witnessed by Government personnel. The First

Article test report is prepared by the contractor or the Government test facility conducting

the test program.

c. The purpose of First Article testing and approval is to assure that the contractor can

furnish a product that meets contract technical and QA requirements, and therefore

minimizes risks for both the contractor and the Government. First Article tests at

contractors' plants and independent test facilities will be monitored by the CAO or other

cognizant activity prescribed by the contract. QA personnel at the ICP will provide, or

arrange for, specialized commodity expertise or related technical assistance when

required. The procuring activity and the SPA may elect to participate in the witnessing of

First Article tests and evaluation of attendant test reports based on such factors as the

contractor's history and item complexity.

d. To assist Government and contractor quality assurance personnel during the production

phase, ICPs will ensure that contractual coverage is provided to require at least one

approved First Article unit be held by the contractor at the production facility until all

production quantities have been produced and accepted. This First Article unit can be

referred to as a production or manufacturing standard/guide and baseline for examination

when defects are reported on delivered materiel or problems are uncovered during

production. In addition, good technical judgment must be applied in determining the total

number of First Article units to be tested for a given contract. This number must be a

sufficient quantity to clearly demonstrate materials used, manufacturing processes

employed, workmanship standards utilized, and the methods employed for the control of

quality are capable of producing an item that meets all the requirements specified in the

contract.

e. First Article inspection and testing requirements cannot be generalized or assumed.

They must be clearly stated in the contract. It should be noted that First Article tests may

be more detailed and extensive than those required for normal production.

f. QA personnel will, upon receipt of a purchase request, or through evaluations

generated by other actions:

(1) Assemble the technical data package and review it for First Article

test requirements. The FAR, paragraph 9.3, provides the criteria where

First Article approvals are particularly appropriate. However, if there is

no specification requirement for First Article testing and approval,

consideration should be given to its use if the product has a history of

unsatisfactory quality or if the product is not adequately defined, i.e.,

manufacturing processes could vary and affect the product. Where it is

determined that First Article approval is required, or if the ESA

requests First Article testing, that requirement should be added to the

mechanized contracting system for future acquisitions.

(2) Make a determination as to whether the contractor or the

Government should be responsible for First Article testing when not

specified by the applicable contract document. This determination

should be based on whether or not potential contractors have, or can

arrange for, the necessary test equipment, facilities, and personnel as

well as consideration of other factors of efficiency and economy that

are applicable to the particular circumstances. If a decision is made that

the Government must perform First Article tests, the place, cost, and

time of testing will be determined and arrangements will be made for

funding and the issuing of project orders as required. The ICP Product

Verification Manager shall be consulted for assistance to arrange

Government Testing.

(3) Recommend the insertion of the applicable clause set forth in FAR,

paragraphs 52.209-3 or 52.209-4, and develop the following

information that clearly describes the details of the First Article Test for

inclusion in, or reference by, the solicitation and resulting contract:

(a) The specific First Article tests and evaluations to be conducted by the

contractor/Government, including the sequence of processes, testing, and evaluations,

where required.

(b) The number of units to be tested.

(d) The criteria (e.g., accept/reject numbers) for determining conformance to the First

Article requirement specified. Collaboration with the Military Services may be necessary

to accomplish this. References to specific paragraphs in the specification are required.

Describing First Article requirements in general terms (i.e., visual, dimensional,

workmanship, specification compliance, and meeting contract requirements) is

prohibited. This is necessary to ensure that the contractor and the Government (in-plant

QAR, ACO, and PCO) clearly understand and interpret contract terms and conditions.

(e) The format of the test report (e.g., test reports prepared in accordance with MIL-STD-

831, Test Reports, Preparation of) for tests and evaluations to be conducted by the

contractor.

(f) Who has authority for acceptance of the First Article (i.e., the Government QAR or

the PCO).

(g) Time required for the First Article evaluation (including testing, if appropriate).

(h) Location where evaluation of the First Article and/or test report will be performed

(i.e., at the ICP, the plant site, or at a Government testing facility).

(i) Number of approved First Articles to be held by the contractors as a manufacturing

standard/guide.

(j) Statement that the First Article must be manufactured at the facility in which that item

is to be produced under the contract.

(k) The data required including the data to be submitted to the Government in the First

Article test report. When the Govern-ment is responsible for such testing, state the tests to

which the First Article will be subjected.

g. Review the quality history of the apparent successful bidder and make appropriate

recommendations to the Contracting Officer when waiver of the requirement for First

Article testing is considered (see FAR, paragraph 9.306(c)).

h. Arrange, through the ICP's Product Verification Manager, for any testing to be

performed by the Government.

i. Arrange for the monitoring of, or participation in, contractor testing by Government

representatives as necessary.

j. Arrange for evaluation of the First Article and/or test report. A complete review of the

test report should include:

(1) Legibility and proper format of report.

(2) Completeness of the report to include: signature and comments of

the QAR, identifying information (i.e., contract number, NSN,

nomenclature, contractor, and facility), and required materiel

certifications.

(3) Correctness of test methods and standards.

(4) Proper preparation for, and performance of, the test. This includes,

but is not limited to, checking to determine that: the test was

completed, specific requirements were met, the correct

drawings/specifications were used, the current items were tested, and

the correct quantities were tested.

k. Advise the Contracting Officer whether the First Article should be approved or

disapproved. For disapprovals, the reasons for the decision must be given and the

contractor informed as to whether a second First Article will be required.

l. Arrange for the return of samples to the contractor or for proper disposal as appropriate.

13. TESTING REQUIREMENTS

a. If specific tests need to be performed by the contractor, during or after production, to

determine an item's conformance to contractual requirements, they must be included in

the contract. When there are specialized verification tests to be performed by the

Government, requirements and arrangements for these tests must also be included in the

contract.

b. Personnel determining testing requirements will:

(1) Review technical data, specifications, item and contractor history,

and contract information to determine the need for testing.

(2) Determine what testing is required, and whether the contractor or

the Government should perform the testing. To the maximum extent,

sufficient laboratory testing should be performed before acceptance of

the items regardless of the location of the testing. If Government testing

is indicated, The ICP Product Verification Manager shall be consulted

to determine whether the testing should be performed at Government

testing facilities or commercial laboratories.

(3) Develop testing requirements. Testing requirements developed will

identify the characteristics and functional requirements of the item to

be tested, but they will not normally specify the model of equipment to

be used.

(a) Each test specified should be for a known and completely understood purpose and

should be as simple as possible without loss of test integrity.

(b) Standard tests in accordance with Federal or Military Test Methods Standards or

Industry Standards should normally be used. The use of standard tests simplifies the

administration of test requirements by eliminating the need to develop a specific test

procedure for each item requiring testing. When standard tests are not available for

reference, or procedures are mandatory to assure that contractual performance is

demonstrated, appropriate test methods and procedures will be developed.

designated Test and Evaluation (T & E) point of contact, the ESA, and the SPA. DLA

personnel may contact the ESA and SPA directly to discuss testing and product quality

issues. Ambiguous testing requirements referenced in specifications will be referred to

the SPA for resolution.

(d) Assure testing requirements are identified as to who will perform them.

(e) Determine and specify the test reports required and the submission requirements.

(4) Provide the provisions and detailed test requirements to the

Contracting Officer with recommendations for inclusion in solicitations

and resulting contracts. Place test requirements in the automated

contracting systems to the maximum extent possible.

(a) Assure that contracts requiring Government testing include provisions for proper

selection of test articles, contractor packing, and delivery to a designated lab-oratory.

Contracts, including requirements for laboratory verifi-cation testing, must include

instructions for disposition and use of test articles. When contracts include requirements

for Government laboratory testing, specify required QAR actions in the QALI that is

prepared for the contract. Prepare and furnish a QALI to the QAR when the results of

Government testing of contract materiel indicates a need for special Government QA

attention during production, processing, contractor testing, or Government testing, prior

to acceptance of materiel.

(b) Through proper channels, obtain concurrence of the Military Surgeons General on

laboratory testing requirements involving the wholesomeness and sanitation aspects of

subsistence items.

(5) Arrange for DCMC QAR or Government/Commercial Laboratories

to perform test surveillance/ validation or to verify compliance with

contract technical requirements when necessary.

(a) Laboratory tests may be requested by DCMC QARs to verify results of contractor

tests, or compliance of delivered items with contract requirements. Verification tests

should be required if the contractor's test results are considered unreliable, or if accepted

product is suspected of not conforming to contract requirements. Contracts do not have to

be modified if test samples are selected from delivered shipments or depot stocks.

Contract modification may be necessary if samples are to be selected at the contractor's

plant, the contractor is asked to perform tests not required by the contract, or the

contractor is asked to package and ship samples to the designated test laboratory.

Requirements for contractors to perform any actions not included in their contract must

be referred to the Contracting Officer for decision and direction.

(6) Initiate requests for laboratory testing to the PVP Office. QA

personnel may request tests when necessary. DD Form 1222, Request

for and Results of Tests, is a convenient method of requesting tests, or

test surveillance that should be used when other forms are not

contractually specified. Requests made by DCMC QARs should be

formalized on DD Forms 1222.

(7) Review Contracts to determine if recommended test requirements

were incorporated.

14. METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION

a. ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, American National Standard for Calibration - Calibration

Laboratories and Measuring and Test Equipment General Requirements, or ISO 10012-1,

Quality Assurance Requirements for Measuring Equipment - Part 1: Metrological

Confirmation System for Measuring Equipment will be specified in those contracts where

the technical nature of the item requires the contractor to maintain a calibration program

to assure delivery of products of the required quality. When MIL-STD-45662,

Calibration Systems Requirements, is required in drawings or specifications, the

ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 or the ISO 10012-1 will be used.

b. The Calibration systems requirements may be tailored when items to be purchased do

not require a full calibration program.

c. Inclusion of calibration requirements in a contract when it is not required by

specification or drawing in the contract package will be limited to those instances where

tractability of calibration of contractor production or inspection equipment is necessary to

assure compatibility of items purchased with equipment being supported or to assure that

the items purchased will serve their intended purpose.

d. Calibration requirements normally will not be included in contracts for commercial or

off-the-shelf items. If they are required, justification must be prepared and submitted to

the contracting officer for preparation of a waiver. e. Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic

Equipment used by ICPs or Depots in the determination of contract compliance of

delivered items or verification of contractor performance shall be calibrated in

accordance with DLAR 4155.21 at appropriate periodic intervals. When ICPs note

inadequacies or errors in calibration of equipment or gages used to determine

acceptability of items purchased by that ICP, affected depots will be immediately notified

orally and in writing.

f. Within available technical capability and resources, ICPs will provide technical

assistance in metrology and calibration areas related to inspection of products purchased

by that ICP when requested by a depot. When technical capability is not available, ICPs

will request assistance from HQ DLA or the Military Service element being supported by

the items purchased.

15. WARRANTIES

a. A warranty is a contractual promise by the seller that extends his liability for defective

items for a stated period of time after Government acceptance. Its primary purpose is to

allow the Government an additional period of time after acceptance in which to

determine whether suppliers' products conform to con-tractual requirements and take

remedial action if necessary. Due to the increased liability associated with warranties,

they also serve to foster increased incentive among suppliers to provide quality products

or services to the Government.

b. The PCO must consider several factors in determining whether to use a warranty.

These factors include:

(1) Nature of the item and its end use. Factors that may support the use

of a warranty are as follows:

(a) Complexity and function of the item makes it difficult to detect all possible defects

prior to acceptance.

(b) Lack of available technical knowledge or adequate QAPs within the Government.

(d) Potential of significant harm to the Government if the items are found to be defective.

(2) Cost of the warranty related to its possible benefits.

(3) The Government's ability to enforce the warranty (administration).

(4) Whether or not the item (or class of items) is customarily warranted

in the trade (trade practice).

(5) Available quality history associated with the item.

c. QA personnel should consider the criteria in paragraph b above and review the item's

quality history. When, based on these factors, personnel responsible for quality

requirements determine a warranty would be beneficial, they will recommend to the PCO

that the item be purchased under warranty.

(1) Even when one or more of the conditions listed under paragraph b

above exists and the Government has the ability to enforce the

warranty, if the quality history of the item has been good, QA

personnel may determine that use of a warranty is not necessary.

(2) Even when none of the above conditions appears to apply and the

Government has the ability to enforce a warranty, if the quality history

of the item shows significant supplier-related quality problems,

personnel responsible for quality requirements may determine that use

of a warranty would be beneficial.

(3) If the Government does not have the ability to effectively enforce a

warranty, its use would serve no meaningful purpose and a warranty

should not be recommended regardless of the item's nature or quality

history.

d. If a warranty is determined necessary, personnel responsible for quality requirements

should recommend to the PCO those items (or class of items) which should be purchased

under a warranty. When recommending the use of a warranty to the PCO, the rationale

for this recommendation should be provided to include pertinent information relating to

the nature of the item, warranty enforcement ability and quality history if available.

e. The PCO is required to take all factors, including cost, and trade practice

considerations, into account in determining whether a warranty should be used or not.

Therefore, although those factors may justify the use of a warranty, the PCO may choose

not to follow their recommendation based on these other factors.

f. When warranties are to be used, personnel responsible for quality requirements should

be prepared to assist the PCO in tailoring the warranty clause to fit the individual item (or

class of items) since the terms and conditions of a warranty clause may vary by item and

even with the circumstances of a specific contract.

16. STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL (SPC)

a. SPC is an element of a process improvement system that provides a method of

statistically monitoring and controlling processes of manufacturing through the concept

of "continuous quality improvement." The contractor first subjects the production process

to a process capability study. The contractor then compares the results to specification

requirements and uses the data to develop an SPC plan. The plan directs

operators/inspectors/ management when to periodically monitor predetermined product

characteristics. Measurements are recorded and plotted on control charts. The control

charts have computed "control limits," which are drawn as upper and lower limit lines on

the charts. The control limits are of assistance in judging the significance of variation of

the process characteristic around the target value. Plotted points falling outside of the

control lines during manufacture are a statistical signal indicating that assignable causes

have entered the process and the process must be investigated.

b. SPC helps distinguish between patterns of variation that are chance (random)/merit no

investigation or assignable/indicative of trouble. SPC uses a group of statistical and

problem-solving techniques arranged in a logical sequence to provide a clear picture of

where and why problems exist. With this information, managers can make the decisions

necessary to solve these problems and make improvements in both product and process.

c. A QAP, which has been fully coordinated with both DLA Legal and DLA Acquisition,

has been developed to implement SPC, (figure 16-1). This SPC QAP should be cited in

DLA contracts when it is appropriate to require the use of SPC by the contractor. To

support this policy, personnel responsible for quality requirements shall assist the

Contracting Officer in determining whether the SPC QAP should be included in DLA

procurements which require Higher-Level Quality Requirements, and when either a

requirement exists to control processes, or when continuous improvement in quality is

desired.

d. In addition to the above policy criteria, SPC should be considered when stronger

control of manufacturing operations and inspections is needed, when controlled processes

and operations are essential to prevent nonconformance, or when the item contains

product characteristics which cannot be inspected at a later stage. Prime candidates for

SPC include complex/critical items, major equipment/systems, high volume

procurements, or where the technical requirements of the contract are such as to require

control.

e. The person performing QA functions can assure the manufacturing the contractor

monitors processes by recommending that the Contracting Officer cite the SPC QAP in a

contract. The SPC QAP may be requested as determined by past Quality history,

technical description of item, complexity and criticality of application.

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISION

MANDATORY USE OF STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROLS

A. GENERAL REQUIREMENT: The contractor agrees to manage and improve process

performance through the evaluation of the quality of the product at the prime contractor

and/or subcontractor facilities, using Statistical Process Control (SPC) techniques.

1. Minimum criteria are established in the former American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) Z1.1, Z1.2 and Z1.3, now the American Society of Quality Control (ASQC),

standards B.1, B.2 and B.3. Alternate SPC techniques, such as short run methods, are also

allowed where applicable.

2. This Quality Assurance Provision applies to all work performed at the prime contractor

and/or subcontractor facilities.

B. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:

1. The contractor shall identify the characteristics to be controlled using SPC techniques

to the Contract Administration Office (CAO) Government Representative for a

determination of acceptability prior to the initiation of First Article or normal production.

The characteristics requiring control will be those characteristics providing the best

assurance of product conformance to contract requirements. In addition to the

characteristics identified by the contractor, the following Contracting Office designated

characteristics will be controlled using SPC techniques_______________________

_____________________________________________________________________.

The contractor should identify in writing any changes to the characteristics initially

identified (either contractor or Government designated), to be controlled using SPC to the

CAO Government Representative for review and determination of acceptability.

Proposed changes to Contracting Office-designated characteristics will not be

implemented until the Contracting Officer provides written approval.

2. The contractor shall write a plan implementing SPC techniques and make it available

for government review prior to initiation of first article or normal production. This plan

shall cover as a minimum:

a. Operations where SPC will be implemented.

b. SPC methods to be applied.

c. Process capability studies to be completed.

d. Methods for control of vendor quality.

e. The sample size and frequency of measurements.

f. The criteria to be used in modifying sample size and frequency of measurements.

g. The audit procedures used to validate the accuracy, adequacy and interpretation of

control charts.

h. Training and qualification requirements for personnel involved in SPC.

i. Criteria for determining an out of control condition.

j. Identification of the responsibility for performing measurements and corrective actions.

k. General policy for applying SPC along with goals and commitments.

l. Documents and records utilized in the SPC program.

m. The corrective action procedures to be used and actions to be taken upon statistical

signal or an out-of-tolerance condition. This plan is subject to disapproval by the

Government following a determination that it lacks the capability to provide control of

contract requirements.

3. The contractor agrees to maintain current, and make available, all documents/records

required by the SPC plan for Government review at any time throughout the life of the

contract and for three years after final delivery on the contract.

4. When processes reach a state of statistical control and the product conforms

completely to contract requirements, the contractor may petition the Procuring

Contracting Officer (PCO), through the CAO, to reduce the contract acceptance sampling

requirements. Previous contractual acceptance sampling criteria will not be changed until

the PCO provides written approval. The Government reserves the right to return to

original acceptance sampling requirements at any indication of a loss of process control

or a degradation in product conformance to contract requirements.

Figure 16-1

f. Personnel responsible for quality requirements will:

(1) Determine applicability of SPC and recommend inclusion of the

QAP in the appropriate solicitations and resulting contracts.

(a) Upon receipt of the purchase request, or through evaluations generated by other

actions, determine whether the SPC QAP should be incorporated in the solicitation.

Consider all available technical data and data from sources such as: Quality complaints,

records of Preaward Surveys, Postaward Orientation Conferences, special inspection, and

any other factor bearing on item or contracting action.

(b) Consider past problems (such as PVP/lab test failures, waivers, PQDRs),

critical/major characteristics, and field reports in order to select items/characteristics for

SPC application.

(2) Determine and specify to the Contracting Officer, the minimum

characteristics to be controlled by SPC and enter as part of the QAP.

Without the minimum characteristics, the contractor as a result of

Pareto analysis and critical characteristic criteria as described in the

QAP would determine the SPC application.

(3) Review contract documents to assure the SPC QAP is

administratively correct and technically sound for the item being

purchased, and take action to make changes when necessary. If the

recommended clause has not been incorporated, a recommendation for

inclusion shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer.

(4) Provide support on SPC issues to the Contracting Officer and other

Government activities (e.g., DCMC), throughout the contracting

process.

(5) Use the SPC QAP (figure 16-1).

17. DEVELOPMENT OF STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES

a. Under proper circumstances, sampling will provide an economic means of determining

the probable quality level of a lot or batch of units of product of a single type, grade, size,

and composition which are manufactured under essentially the same conditions and

essentially at the same time. However, sampling plans are based upon the laws of

probability, and when they are used, the user must assume the risk that the sample may

not be representative of the quality level of the lot. When a decision is made to employ

sampling techniques, a comprehensive evaluation must be made of the capability,

limitations, and risks of the sampling plan selected.

b. The use of statistical sampling plans does not mean that the contractor has the right to

knowingly supply any defective materiel to the Government, nor does it mean that the

Government will knowingly accept defective materiel.

c. Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs), Lot Tolerance Percent Defective (LTPD), and the

"Point-System" point counts have the effect of contractually authorizing the acceptance

of nonconforming materiel. They inhibit quality improvement since they imply that

defects are allowable. The use of these practices must be eliminated wherever feasible.

d. Personnel responsible for quality requirements shall ensure that each solicitation and

resultant contract, by contract clause, exhibit or specification reference, contains the

necessary requirements to provide an acceptable product. Statistical expertise in quality

assurance will be estab-lished at each ICP. Personnel will:

(1) Develop/review sampling requirements and accept/reject criteria in

specifications, purchase descriptions, QAPs, storage standards,

maintenance instructions and Commercial Activity Performance Work

Statements, and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans.

(2) Take the following actions for AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts:

(a) Use contractual means to override specification AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts

when specifications must be used that contain AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts, and the

specifications are not prepared/controlled by ICPs. These contractual means will require

rejection of any lot of materiel if even one defect is found in the sample inspections/tests

(i.e., require sampling plans that accept on zero defects and reject on one or more

defect(s)). The contractual means may include a material Acceptance Statement made

part of the Procurement Item Description (PID) or Supplemental Descriptive Data Table

(SDDT) in the CTDF or a QAP placed in the contract. These c=0 (accept on zero defects)

sampling plans will be constructed to provide less risk to the Government (of accepting

lots of materiel with defects) than the AQL, LTDP, or point count sampling plans that

they replace.

(b) Revise specifications (before the end of their current five-year review cycle) to

remove the AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts when the specifications (including

commercial item descriptions) contain AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts, and the

specifications are prepared/controlled by ICPs. The revised c=0 sampling plans will be

constructed to provide less risk to the Government than the AQL, LTPD, or point count

sampling plans that they replace. The AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts may be replaced

with one or more of the following: [1] c=0 (accept on zero defects) sampling plans. [2]

100 percent inspection/test. [3] Use of Statistical Process Control (SPC). [4] Use of

process capability index (Cp) and process performance index (Cpk) to achieve variability

reduction. [5] A Part Per Million (PPM) quality reporting system that accumulates data

from individual lots using c=0 sampling plans to establish an ongoing quality assessment.

[6] Destructive tests with fixed sample sizes and explicit accept/reject criteria.

above, in lieu of a contractual override as outlined in subparagraph (2)(a) above, in those

situations where the ICPs are responsible for the specifications and standardized

sampling plans used for both commercial and military customers, and the use of different

sampling plans will cause procurement problems.

(d) Some exceptions to subparagraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) above are: [1] The nature of the

commodity is such that it is necessary to be consistent with the industry's state-of-the-art.

[2] The cost of 100 percent conformance is excessive for non-critical application items

such as roofing nails, common incandescent light bulbs, clothing and textiles. [3] The

commodity is a medical product under the jurisdiction of Federal laws and regulations

administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [4] The commodity is a

subsistence product under the juris-diction of Federal laws and regulations administered

by the FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or U.S. Department of Commerce

(USDC).

(e) Exceptions to subparagraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) above must only be approved by the

ICP Commander or the Commander's designated repre-sentatives. Approved exceptions,

with supporting rationale, will be documented in appropriate files. Supporting rationale

will include market investigations that substantiate that AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts

represent the best or only acceptable practice for measuring quality, when applicable. The

exceptions will be periodically reviewed by the ICPs to determine if conditions have

changed to permit the elimination of AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts from DLA

contracts and/or specifications for these items. The ICP will decide how often these

periodic reviews of exceptions will be performed.

(3) Where a contractor submits a sampling plan, personnel will review

the plan to assure that it contains the confidence and quality levels that

are required.

(4) When "isolated" lots of materiel are procured (i.e., the units of

product or service are not produced in a continuing series of lots or

batches over a period of time), the use of AQL plans does not assure

the Government sufficient protection.

(5) Develop/review statistical criteria for evaluating contractors and

item performance history.

(6) Perform trend analysis and compute confidence levels and other

statistical measures.

(7) Perform an analysis of Complaints and present such analyses to

management.

(8) Provide training to QA and other personnel on the interpretation and

use of statistical techniques.

e. Considerable formal training and preparation in statistics are required for the planning,

interpretation, and evaluation of statistical investigations. QA personnel can be trained

via on-the-job training; however, as a minimum, Quality Assurance Specialists shall

complete the Statistical Quality Control course, Q63, identified in DLAD 4155.7, Quality

Assurance Technical Development Program for ICPs and Defense Depots.

18. PREAWARD ACQUISITION SUPPORT. It is essential that adequate quality and

reliability support be provided to the ICP contracting mission. QA support to the

preaward contracting effort is not limited to the assignment of QAPs, but continues

throughout the preaward and contracting cycle. Personnel assigned to perform quality

functions will:

a. Provide provisioning input to Military Services and to the ICP's Contracting and

Supply personnel regarding Quality Assurance issues that affect provisioning. This can

include areas such as test requirements that may require longer lead times, additional

quantities required for destructive testing, and potential quality problems.

b. Provide support for item transfers. This includes identification of quality aspects and

considerations that must be made for items to be transferred, determining the quality

information and technical data that is required to be provided by the organization

transferring the item, assisting in obtaining the technical data, and identifying items that

should be transferred back to Military Services due to quality considerations.

c. Process MIPRs. See paragraph 19.

d. Perform Preaward Survey actions. See paragraph 20.

e. Assist in development of Acquisition Plans. See paragraph 21.

f. Review requests for the waiver of contract requirements and contracting actions that

are related to quality. The review shall be based upon contractor and item history and will

consider the circumstances of each case. When contract requirement waivers are

repetitive, consideration should be given to revising the QAP requirements.

Recommendations will be provided to the Contracting Officer and each request shall be

documented with the reasons for the original requirement and the reasons for waiver of

that requirement.

(1) First Article requirement waiver procedure is provided in paragraph

12.

(2) Preaward survey waiver procedure is provided in paragraph 20.

g. Provide contractor and item quality performance history to the Contracting Officer and

other Government personnel to aid in their preaward decisions. See paragraph 41.

h. Provide contracting personnel support, as requested, in any source selection action,

including serving as a member of a Technical Evaluation Panel.

19. MILITARY INTERDEPARTMENTAL PURCHASE REQUESTS (MIPRs). MIPRs

are received for processing under the Coordinated Acquisition discussed in DFARS,

Subpart 208.70. A MIPR, DD Form 448, is a purchase order issued by one Military

Service Government activity to purchase a specific item not managed by DLA, for the

MIPR preparing activity. The stocks are usually shipped directly to the location specified

in the MIPR. The MIPR may contain, or be accompanied by, QALIs for issuance to the

cognizant CAS component when the contract is awarded. MIPRs, unlike normal

contracts, do not allow the establishment of QAPs and packaging requirements in

advance of contracting to eliminate the need for a manual review of each contracting

action.

a. Review MIPRs for adequacy.

(1) Determine that each MIPR clearly indicates the extent of quality

assurance required of the contractor and CAO. This determination will

be accomplished through a manual review of each MIPR on an "as

received" basis. It will specifically result in the development of QAPs

and contract requirements to incorporate MIPR requirements in the

contract document, as well as the development and issuance of QALIs,

as applicable, to the CAO.

(2) Contact the MIPR-preparing activity to request clarification and

corrective actions from the MIPR-preparing activity when QA

requirements stated in the MIPR are found to be inaccurate,

incomplete, or lacking in clarity to the extent that contracting is

precluded. These requests will be processed through the respective

MIPR control point.

b. Incorporate appropriate QAPs in contract documents to reflect MIPR requirements.

(1) Obtain approval from the MIPR-preparing activity through the

MIPR control point for deviations to specifications cited in a MIPR.

Interim approval may be obtained by telephone but must be verified in

writing. In the event there has been a revision to the specification

referenced in a MIPR, the MIPR-preparing activity will be advised of

the change and instructions will be requested.

(2) Assure that changes to the QA requirements of MIPRs are

processed as MIPR amendments. This applies whether the change is

initiated prior to, or after, conversion to a contract and whether such

change is initiated by the ICP or requested by the MIPR-preparing

activity. Changes can be initially provided by telephone but shall be

confirmed by a MIPR amendment.

c. Provide postaward contracting support on QA matters for MIPR-generated purchases,

including the resolution of customer complaints. In accomplishing postaward contracting

support functions, coordination will be effected with the MIPR-preparing activity as

required.

(1) Issue QALIs to provide MIPR inspection instructions to the CAO

and provide technical assistance to the inspection activity or CAO.

(2) Participate in postaward orientation conferences as needed.

(3) Arrange for, or accomplish, all necessary tests and examinations of

First Article samples. The MIPR will indicate when the MIPR-

preparing activity desires to participate in a test. A copy of the test

results will be provided the MIPR-preparing activity for approval of the

First Article. If there is unsatisfactory quality history on contractor

sources that are indicated on the MIPR as approved sources, the MIPR-

preparing activity should be advised and instructions requested.

(4) Evaluate contractor requests for waivers. In this regard QA

personnel must remember that all waivers/deviations to the stated

requirements of the MIPR require the approval of the MIPR-preparing

activity.

(5) Investigate and resolve customer complaints regarding product

quality and packaging deficiencies. A complaint received from an

activity other than the MIPR-preparing activity will first be coordinated

with the MIPR-preparing activity through the respective MIPR control

point. Full actions described in paragraph 27 are applicable, including:

(a) Review of complaint data.

(b) Categorization of complaint.

forwarding copies of the complaint to the cognizant CAS activities for information or

investigation.

20. PREAWARD SURVEYS. DLAD 4105.1 requires that Contracting Officers obtain

information to make a determination regarding responsibility and to determine potential

contractors' capability. This necessitates the maintenance of contractor performance

history. Contracting Officers use quality information from many sources, including the

Defense Logistics Agency Contractor Alert, local contractor performance lists, review of

contractor performance history (as maintained in manual or automated files, i.e., the

Quality Evaluation Program (QEP)), or as obtained from the CAO and QA personnel at

the ICP. Procedures for providing such information are as follows:

a. Collect appropriate quality history for either the manual or automated systems, for

determinations of responsibility and determinations of potential contractors' capability.

b. When requested by the Contracting Officer, or when performing a review of the

quality history of the item/contractor, analyze the quality history to determine when

either a specific item or contractor has experienced quality problems in past

procurements.

c. Determine whether a Preaward Survey for QA reasons would be appropriate in future

procurements. If determined to be appropriate, personnel performing quality functions

shall inform the Contracting Officer, in writing, of this recommendation, providing

justification as well as the specific QA areas that need to be reviewed during the

Preaward Survey. The review should include the type of item, criticality, complexity,

recommendations from the ESA/SPA, and quality history. Quality history data should be

reviewed for First Article examinations, waiver/deviation history, previous preaward

data, quality deficiency reports, and any other pertinent data. When notified of a proposed

Preaward Survey, review the data relating to both the prospective contractor and item(s)

involved. d. Provide the Contracting Officer with one of the following recommendations,

as appropriate, with a pertinent summary of available quality history (obtained from the

Quality Evaluation Program (QEP) or manual system):

(1) Existing QA data indicates a Preaward Survey is not required.

(2) A Preaward Survey is necessary based on the quality history of the

item or the prospective contractor.

e. In providing quality history to Contracting Officers, complete information will be

provided for each aspect that affects quality. Contractor quality performance records will

not be limited to product quality deficiencies, but also will include discrepancies due to

inadequate packaging, improper or missing documentation, overages, shortages,

misdirected, and damaged shipments and similar discrepancies, as well as other criteria

such as delivery performance.

f. If Contracting Officers determine that there are overriding reasons for awarding a

contract to a supplier who has an unsatisfactory quality history, the contract file will be

documented accordingly, and a Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI) shall be

used/submitted to the activity responsible for Government Quality Assurance at source or

destination. Document these actions in the quality history.

g. Provide on-site representation at Preaward Surveys when required. Normally,

representations will be limited to those cases when:

(1) Representation is requested by the Contracting Officer or by HQ

DLA.

(2) Special commodity expertise and quality history information are

only available at the ICP.

(a) If the QA aspects of a Preaward Survey can be effectively performed by a CAS

Quality Representative, ICP QA personnel presence is normally not required.

(b) ICP QA personnel should only attend on-site Preaward Surveys when the specific QA

requirements of the item on the pending contract require application of their commodity

expertise to evaluate the prospective contractor's capability.

prepared to actively participate and apply their judgment and expertise in evaluating the

prospective contractor's capability. Their findings should be coordinated with any CAS

Quality Representatives on the survey team and incorporated into the official report

submitted by the CAO. Participation in on-site Preaward Surveys by ICP personnel will

be reported as QSMVs.

h. Review the results of all Preaward Surveys containing information questioning a

contractor's quality control capability. In addition, coordination with contracting

personnel should be effected to allow review of other Preaward Survey results where

quality was reviewed and found to be adequate. This is especially important for Preaward

Survey results involving items or contractors for which there was a previous

recommendation for performance of a Preaward Survey based on unsatisfactory quality

history. These reviews will be conducted whether or not a ICP representative participated

in the on-site Preaward Survey.

(1) Reviews should ensure that all pertinent quality factors were

considered.

(2) The reviews will be performed in an expeditious manner to prevent

undue delays in the contracting process.

(3) If the review reveals possible problems in the quality area, and

contract award is made, this will be brought to the attention of the

responsible contract administration activity and a QALI issued if

considered necessary.

21. ACQUISITION PLANS AND ASSOCIATED SOLICITATIONS. Written

acquisition plans document the objectives of the acquisition and details of the

considerations and alternatives that have been evaluated. Personnel performing quality

functions provide support to the acquisition planner regarding the development of quality

aspects of the acquisition plan and review and evaluations of other areas for their effect

upon the quality of the materiel to be acquired. Personnel performing quality aspects of

acquisition planning will:

a. Serve as members of the acquisition planner's team when requested.

b. Provide quality-related solicitation plans. This includes:

(1) Complete, adequate, and current QAPs.

(2) Plan of performance, inspection and acceptance points.

(3) Contract quality requirements.

(4) Quality considerations of Government versus contractor

performance, i.e., Government Furnished Material, Government

Furnished Equipment.

(5) Discussion of methods to be used to determine quality/compliance

with requirements. Consider and include:

(a) First Article test requirements.

(b) Production tests.

(d) Special test requirements and location of testing.

(e) Alternative for test requirements and criteria for waiving test requirements.

(f) Use of CoC.

(g) Use of CoQC.

(6) Requirements for use of QPL, QSL, qualified manufacturer's lists,

or other qualification requirements (provide number of

products/sources on qualification lists and describe plans for qualifying

additional products/sources).

(7) Requirements for certification, licensing, or approval by

Government control agencies.

(8) Reporting requirements for production surveillance and production

progress and description of any reliability and maintainability

requirements.

(9) Planned use of warranties.

(10) Plans to use test and evaluation methods (i.e., lab testing, receipt

inspection, product audits. Plans for other Quality assurance support

actions as provided by this manual.

c. Determine and provide item quality performance history, for the same or similar

supplies and services, including customer complaints, quality history, and congressional

inquiry history.

d. Provide contractor quality history for anticipated sources to be solicited.

e. Determine, document, and advise the acquisition planner of the effects upon quality for

alternative supplies and sources, and tradeoff considerations of price differences, quality,

and acquisition/production lead time.

22. Prime Vendor and Performance-based Service Contracting (PBSC).

a. Quality support must be provided to Contracting Officers to define, analyze, and

categorize support functions and tasks for the purpose of contracting with private industry

for services and support activities. This can include the evaluation of present Government

functions for possible conversion to performance by contractor personnel.

b. Functional personnel develop the contract statement of work that is performance

oriented. These statements are referred to as Performance Work Statements (PWS). The

PWS describes the effort in terms of objective, measurable performance standards

(outputs). Each PWS should have a companion Quality Assurance Plan which measures

contractor performance against the performance standards.

c. When developing or reviewing PWSs and QAPs, personnel should assure that they

contain:

(1) The basic QA policy that should be incorporated clearly in PWS

definitions, performance requirements, and technical exhibits, is the

requirement that quality control is a contractor responsibility.

(2) Clear definition of Quality Control requirements/system that is

required of the Contractor. Contract Quality requirements provided in

FAR 46.202 and 46.203, and paragraph 6 of this instruction, should be

specified.

(3) Outcomes that can be measured and monitored. This includes:

(a) Performance standards that can be used as criteria to judge acceptable and non-

acceptable performance.

(b) Performance standards that are appropriate for the type of service required, e.g.,

critical services should have stricter standards and low ADD requirements in comparison

to AQLs or number of customer complaints allowable for non-critical services. The

performance requirement summary should not indicate which method of surveillance will

be used by the Government.

(4) Definition of Quality Assurance (Surveillance) that MAY be

performed by the Government. These are referred to as Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASP). Whether all of these elements

are used is a determination of the person performing quality functions,

and all of these elements should be available to be invoked when

needed. Quality Assurance surveillance methods should not be

restrictive, i.e., the Government COR needs the freedom to change

methods of surveillance as needed. The Quality Assurance methods

should include planned surveillance methods appropriate to the

criticality and frequency of each task specified in the PWS. These

should include:

(a) Initial assessments/audits of the contractor's quality system to determine if the

contractor's quality system that is actually implemented is as stated in the contractor's

proposals and is effective.

(b) Review of performance metrics that are maintained by the contractor. Access to the

contractor's management information system should be specified as a requirement in the

contract to enable this review. The review may include such things as process control

records, type and frequency of replacement items or services requested, customer

complaints, and evaluations of effectiveness of the contractor's quality system.

for performing product quality assurance performance evaluations should be specified or

negotiated with the contractor. For product inspection/testing, establishment of

procedures for a sampling methodology, selection, shipment, replacement of samples,

reports format, and the transmission of product verification results to the contractor

should be defined. Results of random and directed inspection/testing need to be

maintained in a format that is usable to contracting personnel, integrated process teams

and future technical panels as required. Any random/directed performance evaluation of

product should only be to monitor contractor performance and not to accept or reject

product or services that are provided.

(5) Other elements depending on the scope of the contract and the

nature of the items/materiel provided, warranty provisions, product

liability, and recoupment provisions may also be defined in the

solicitations or defined during negotiations.

23. POSTAWARD ACQUISITION SUPPORT. QA support to the contracting effort is

not finished when the contract is awarded. Personnel responsible for performing Quality

Assurance functions will be responsive to requests for QA action from other ICP

personnel, and respond to these requests using the most current data available. A

summary of post-award actions is as follows:

a. Review contract documents, to assure that QAPs are administratively correct and

technically sound for the item being purchased, and taking action to make changes when

necessary. SPA approval must be obtained prior to amending any specification

requirements. See paragraph 24.

b. Provide support on quality and reliability issues to the Contracting Officer and other

Government activities, e.g., DCMC, throughout the postaward contracting process. This

includes:

(1) Providing recommendations for, or waivers of, postaward

orientation conferences, based on contractor quality history. See

paragraph 25.

(2) Issuing QALIs designating specific inspections, verification, or

tests, to be conducted by the CAO, or the receiving depot. In addition,

providing the CAO/Depot with quality history for the product, service,

or contractor, when appropriate. See paragraph 26.

(3) Participating in First Article testing or production tests at contractor

plants, as required/as requested by the CAO. Evaluating and

recommending approval or disapproval of test reports. See paragraph

12.

(4) Arranging for Government or commercial laboratory testing, as

necessary, through the Product Verification Manager. See paragraph

13.

(5) Evaluating contractor requests for changes to, or waiver of, contract

requirements. See paragraph 4.

(6) Evaluating contractor requests for product deviations and product

waivers, and recommending approval or disapproval of the request.

When the request affects requirements established by an ESA, SPA, or

technical activity, approval will not be recommended without

coordination. See paragraph 27.

(7) Performing QSMVs to inspection activities, depots, supply points,

prepositioned war reserve sites, laboratories, customer installations, and

contractor facilities. See paragraph 31.

(8) Participating in QSRs as warranted by quality history and/or other

circumstances. See paragraph 31.

(9) Investigating, resolving, and responding in a timely and adequate

manner to Customer Depot Complaints (CDCs) which report

product/packaging quality deficiencies. See paragraph 28.

(10) Providing commodity oriented training to DCMC, DD, and ICP

personnel, and other activities, as required.

(11) Investigating and replying to adverse quality and reliability

allegations. See paragraph 32.

(12) Performing Quality Assurance actions and investigations of

Counterfeit Materiel and Unauthorized Product Substitutions

(CM/UPS) cases referred by the CM/UPS Committee. See paragraph

33.

(13) Evaluating Contract Data Package Recommendation/Deficiency

Reports (DD Forms 1716). See paragraph 34.

(14) Appearing as Government witness at trials and giving depositions,

as required.

(15) Arranging for special Quality Audit inspection of materiel at DDs

and supply points. Audits will be arranged through the ICP Product

Verification Managers. See paragraph 37.

(16) Collecting and maintaining quality history. Providing contractor

quality performance history to the Contracting Officer and other

Government personnel to aid in their postaward decisions, e.g.,

recommended terminations, waiver requests, and

suspension/debarment. See paragraph 41.

24. CONTRACT REVIEW. To assure that appropriate QAPs have been incorporated into

the contracts and to prepare for postaward QA actions, it is essential that the Quality

Assurance personnel review the actual contracting documents. Because the quality

requirements are put in solicitations before award, there is no way to know which

contractor actually received the award in order to take necessary QA actions. As a

minimum, personnel assigned responsibility for quality should review all ICP contracts,

and contract modifications, designating performance of Government CQA actions at

source. Contracts, and contract modifications, designating CQA at destination should be

reviewed when adverse quality history has been experienced or if quality problems are

anticipated. The following procedures apply:

a. Assure that contracts and contract modifications (for their assigned items) that have

CQA at source, are provided for review.

b. Determine which contracts and contract modifications (for assigned items) that have

CQA at destination, should be provided for review.

(1) During routine preaward actions (i.e., review of acquisition plans,

determination of QAPs, Preaward Surveys) an indication may be given

that quality problems may occur. At this time, the person performing

QA functions should take action to assure that future contracts will be

provided for their review.

(2) During routine postaward actions (i.e., PQDR investigation, First

Article review, Waiver/Deviation review, QSMVs) an indication may

be given that problems are being experienced with items or contractors.

At this time, action should be taken to assure that future contracts will

be provided for review.

c. Review contracts and contract modifications as follows:

(1) Check the contract to assure that the QAPs and contract quality

requirements originally requested were placed in the contract

documents. Check the contract modifications for any changes in

requested quality requirements.

(2) Check the contractor history to assure that there is no adverse

history that would affect the performance of the contract. This is

needed at the point of contract review because contract review is the

first time that the contractor is known to the person that recommended

the contract requirements.

(3) If there are changes to what was requested, or changes are required

based upon review of quality history, the Contracting Officer should be

informed. Possible corrective actions that the Contracting Officer may

wish to make may be issuance of a modification or even termination of

the contract. If suggested/requested changes are not made, the request

should be documented and consideration should be given to performing

additional quality assurance surveillance actions or performance

verification.

d. Perform or prepare for postaward actions based on the review of the contract, and the

quality history of the contractor, as follows:

(1) Determine the need for a postaward conference.

(2) Determine the need for a QALI.

(3) Initiate arrangements for First Article and other tests.

(4) Determine the need for a QSMV.

(5) Determine need for special audits and initiate actions.

(6) Input the contract's quality data into the quality history system

(QEP, if available).

25. POSTAWARD ORIENTATION CONFERENCE. Postaward conferences are

conducted by the Government to fully familiarize the contractor with the terms and

conditions of the contract and clarify any misunderstandings. Personnel performing

quality functions will:

a. Request a postaward conference when past quality history and/or previous contractor

experience on an item has shown quality problems. When recommending a postaward

conference for QA reasons, provide the Contracting Officer with pertinent data to support

the need for such conference and the specific requirements necessary to assure a

comprehensive conference in the QA area.

b. Participate in postaward conferences, when appropriate (i.e., requested by the

Contracting Officer or when specific knowledge or expertise is available only from the

ICP) providing background, quality performance data, and QA assistance to contractors

and in-plant QARs.

(1) Prior to participation in a postaward conference, review the

following areas:

(a) Preaward Survey Findings.

(b) Previous postaward conferences.

viewpoint.

(d) Quality history of the contractor and/or item

(e) Status of contractor (new, current, personnel changes)

(f) Special provisions of the contract (in-process inspection, test verification procedures,

Government approval of first articles and control of Government furnished materials).

(2) If review of (1) indicates any ambiguous or inadequate technical

requirements/QA requirements, resolution should be obtained prior to

postaward conference.

(3) Actions to resolve any deficiencies may include requests to user/

ESA/SPA for clarifications, changes or recommended contract

modifications.

c. Arrange for the conference. The office that determines the need for a post-award

conference normally will make the necessary arrangements for the conference. Personnel

performing quality functions will act as chairpersons of conferences when designated by

the Contracting Officer. The duties of the chairperson include establishing a time and

place for the conference, preparing an agenda, notifying the CAO, conducting a

preliminary meeting of Government personnel, and preparing a summary report of the

conference. When personnel are designated as chairpersons, they will:

(1) Prepare an agenda using DD Form 1484, Post-Award Conference

Record, as a guide to ensure all significant matters are covered.

(2) Ensure copies of the agenda are distributed to the participants

sufficiently in advance of the conference to allow them time for

preparation.

(3) Schedule a meeting of Government personnel prior to the

conference and establish the Government's position on the contract to

avoid any disagreement in the presence of the contractor.

(4) Supervise preparation of a summary report upon completion of the

conference and sign the report. Assure quality problems discussed at

the conference, including those requiring further action and resolution,

are recorded in the summary report.

(5) Distribute copies of the summary report to the Contracting Officer,

the CAO, the QAR, and other participants and activities requiring the

information. The Contracting Officer shall distribute the report to the

contractor if determined necessary.

d. Perform the following functions at postaward conferences:

(1) Provide background information on the quality aspects of the

item(s) discussed and include data on past contractor(s) problems

(without identification of the firm(s) involved).

(2) Participate in the conference, answering any questions relating to

the QA aspects of the contract. If a QA question cannot be answered

during the conference, the Contracting Officer will be informed and

every effort will be made to provide a response within a reasonable

time.

26. QUALITY ASSURANCE LETTERS OF INSTRUCTION (QALIs). QALIs are

issued to/discussed with the activity responsible for Government CQA actions at source

or destination for the purpose of assuring the integrity of DLA-procured products and

services.

a. QALIs are used for

(1) Providing for positive in-plant Government inspection of selected

product or process characteristics by specifying to the CAO the type

and extent of Government inspections to be performed on a given

contract for specific supplies or services that are complex or for which

unusual requirements have been established, or that have been reported

deficient or nonconforming by receiving, testing, or using activities.

(2) Providing the CAO with adverse quality history on the item and/or

contractor so the CAO is aware of known or potential problem areas.

b. There are two types of QALIs:

(1) A formal QALI is a letter prepared by personnel performing quality

functions on the ICP's letterhead stationery and signed within that

persons organization. This letter is provided to the CAO/inspection

points to provide information and to request mandatory inspections.

Mandatory inspections shall only be requested with a formal QALI.

Data considered appropriate for a QALI should not be incorporated in

an award instrument or contract.

(2) An Informal QALI is any communication (by telephone, fax,

informal notes, or meetings with CAO/inspection point personnel. It is

essential that summary information of both informal and formal QALIs

be entered into the QEP to assure that a record is kept of the

requirements or information provided.

c. In keeping with DoD policy, CAOs are required to:

(1) Perform inspections imposed by QALIs.

(2) Review QALIs and, when appropriate, make recommendations to

the Contracting Officer for their improvement.

(3) Continue performing QALI-imposed inspections until

recommendations have been acted upon. The Contracting Officer is

obligated to take appropriate action on such recommendations. The

type and extent of inspections specified in a QALI should not be

considered as static, but rather subject to changes throughout the life of

the contract based on quality history such as postaward conferences,

Government in-plant inspection results, QSMVs, QSRs, user feedback,

waivers, and other related data.

d. Periodically, special inspections at depots may require the issuance of QALIs. Such

letters should be used to the extent necessary to achieve the same objectives at depots as

at contractor facilities.

e. Personnel performing quality functions must make a determination whether a QALI is

needed for a specific contract. they should base their decisions on the following factors:

(1) Criticality of the product in relation to its intended use, considering

such factors as reliability, safety, and interchangeability.

(2) Contractor performance and past experience with the same or

similar items indicates a need for special attention. Future contractor

performance may be indicated when a contract award is made to a

contractor irrespective of a negative preaward survey.

(3) Problems that have been encountered in the acquisition of the same

or similar items.

(4) Feedback data from receiving, testing, and using activities.

(5) The contract concerns a new contractor or item for which there is no

quality history.

(6) The technical activity request for a flow down to the CAO of

mandatory inspections (e.g., MIs on IRPOD items). A QALI shall be

used to accomplish this in all cases.

(7) A determination is made to specifically withhold CAO authority for

acceptance of minor nonconformances of material.

(8) The CAO's use of CoC needs to be restricted when a competitive

procurement is awarded to a contractor whose reputation or

performance does not provide assurance that defective supplies would

be replaced without contest.

(9) There is a need to call a postaward conference.

(10) There is need for ICP personnel to participate in First Article or

similar testing, or provide technical assistance.

(11) A change has been made in the Quality Assurance Provisions since

the item was last procured. This can include adding CoQC,

Manufacturing Process Control clause, or the Statistical Process

Control QAP.

f. Restrictions for use. QALIs shall be issued on a contract-by-contract basis only and

shall not be prepared covering the following conditions or containing the following types

of information without prior approval of HQ DLA, DLSC-LEQ:

(1) As a substitute for incomplete contract quality requirements.

(2) Where the contract does not impose equal or greater inspection

requirements on the contractor.

(3) Encompassing broad or general designations such as "all

requirements," "all characteristics," or "all characteristics in the

classification of defects."

(4) On routine administrative procedures.

(5) Specifying continued inspection requirements when statistically

sound sampling will provide an adequate degree of protection.

(6) On a commodity or FSC basis.

g. Preparation of QALIs. Guidance as to the type of information considered appropriate

for inclusion in a QALI is provided below.

(1) Contract Identification. Identify the contract number; name and

address of contractor (include name and address of place of

manufacturer if different from the prime contractor); item(s) being

procured and applicable specification/drawing/part number.

(2) ICP QA Point of Contact. Identify the individual assigned to the

specific contract to include his/her organization, telephone number, fax

number, and e-mail address.

(3) Postaward QA Conference. Include in the QALI only if it is

determined that such a conference is essential and beneficial with

respect to a detailed review of the contractual QA/ technical

requirements.

(4) Inspection Instructions. Describe in precise terms the type and

extent of the inspections (specific product/process characteristics) the

CAO is required to verify. Characteristics must be clearly listed and

referenced to their respective technical source document such as the

specification or drawing. "Type of inspection refers to examination

(visual/dimensional) and testing of end items as well as in-process and

may apply to First Articles, Production Lots and production quantities."

"Extent" should be phrased to clearly define the degree and frequency

of the Government inspection required, e.g., verifying that the listed

characteristics conform to technical requirements on "each of the first

50 production quantity items;" "using the contractual sampling plan,

sample each lot submitted by the contractor for Government acceptance

and verify that paragraph x.x.x of Specification XX complies with

contractual requirements;" other similar instructions. Efforts must be

made to avoid usage of general terms, such as all characteristics and

total requirements. Extreme care must be taken in identifying these

mandatory inspections, as excessive or nonessential inspection

requirements directed by the Purchasing Office impose a heavy burden

on the CAO. The QALI should not include requirements for

Government inspection unless the contract imposes similar

requirements on the contractor. If such a condition is surfaced, action

should be taken to modify the contract. Further, where the

specifications require the Government QAR to perform certain

identified inspections, these requirements should not be repeated in the

QALIs.

(5) Nonconforming Materiel and Services. Specify the CAO authority

for accepting nonconforming materiel. The CAO has the authority to

accept nonconforming materiel having minor departures unless the

Contracting Officer specifically withholds such authority. Minor

departures are defined as those which do not involve health, safety,

performance, durability, reliability, interchangeability, effective use,

operation, weight, or appearance (where a factor). If it is determined

that acceptance authority for minor departures should be withheld, the

QALI must indicate this requirement and include instructions as to

procedures the CAO is to follow in processing contractor requests to

the PCO for consideration.

(6) Contractor/Item Quality History. Provide pertinent, factual, and

objective information about product problems experienced, possible

trouble areas, and contractor past performance, where performance may

adversely affect the quality of supplies and services being contracted.

There may be instances where the QAR may not be thoroughly familiar

with the item under contract; therefore, it is of major benefit to the ICP

to impart the experience that has already been gained with the same or

similar items. This type of information should be most helpful in

assisting the CAO plan and implement in-plant CQA actions taking

into account known or potential problem areas.

(7) CAO QA Inspection Records. Product verification records shall not

be requested indiscriminately; but where such records are required,

forms in use by the CAO's QARs shall be used to satisfy this

requirement.

(8) Product-Oriented or Specialized Training and Experience. Specify

training or assistance available/required. When it is determined that

specialized product-oriented experience and/or training is required to

accomplish the job and protect the interests of DLA in obtaining a

quality product, details concerning the types of product-oriented

training and experience and why it is considered essential should be

included in the QALI. DLA personnel may offer technical assistance

and request the CAO provide notification of when specific

tests/examinations will take place so on-site participation by ICP

personnel can be arranged.

(9) Acknowledgment of QALI. Self-explanatory.

h. Approval and Distribution of QALIs. After the completed QALI is signed, two copies

of the approved QALI will be forwarded to the cognizant CAO or provided to the

Contracting Officer for attachment to the CAO's copies of the contract during contract

distribution.

i. Post QALI Actions. After issuance of the QALI, pertinent feedback data, i.e., test

results, QSMVs, and user experience, should be analyzed to determine if conditions

warrant a change in the type and extent of inspection imposed on the CAO. Such an

adjustment may be upward or downward. It is DLA policy to be responsive to CAO

requests for reduction of inspection requirements contained in the QALI, provided

sufficient data and justification are furnished to substantiate the requested reduction. All

requests will be answered and if a request is denied, the reasons will be included in the

reply. Telephone inquiries to the ICP's QA point of contact for a specific QALI should be

answered promptly as the effectiveness of the QALI is keyed to a full understanding of it

by the CAO.

27. DEVIATIONS AND WAIVERS - NONCONFORMING MATERIEL. QA personnel

must evaluate and make recommendations to the Contracting Officer on requests for

Deviations and Waivers of nonconforming materiel.

a. The following definitions apply:

(1) Requests for Deviations are written requests from the contractor,

after contract award and prior to manufacture of an item, to depart from

a particular performance, or other design requirement, of a contract

specification or referenced document. The request for the deviation

must specify the number of units or specific period of time. The written

authorization from the Contracting Officer to the contractor is the

Deviation.

(2) Requests for Waivers are written requests from the contractor, after

contract award and during/after production of the item, for specific

items that have been determined to depart from a particular

performance or other design requirement of a contract specification or

referenced document. The written authorization from the Contracting

Officer, accepting the departure, is the Waiver.

(3) Nonconforming materiel is any item, part, product, or packaging of

product, with one or more characteristics which depart from the

specification, drawing, or product description requirements of the

contract.

b. Requests for Waivers/Deviations discussed in this section are for product

performance/characteristic nonconformances. The evaluation of "Product"

Waiver/Deviation Requests is different from the evaluation of "Contract"

Waiver/Deviation Requests. Contract Waiver/Deviation Requests refer to requests for

contract clause changes (i.e., removal of First Article requirement, Higher-level contract

requirements, testing requirements). Procedures for evaluation of contract waiver

requests are provided in paragraph 18.

c. It is DLA policy to accept only that materiel which fully conforms in all respects to the

contract requirements. The offer of nonconforming material to the Government for

acceptance should be the exception, and contractors should be discouraged from

submitting Requests for Deviations and Requests for Waiver.

d. When evaluation of the criteria depicted in a specification indicates a change is

required or beneficial to the Government, action should be taken to change the criteria,

not waive them. Caution must be exercised to ensure the criteria are not degraded in favor

of resolving contractor problems with meeting schedules or contractor inability to meet

valid criteria.

e. The contractor prepares Requests for Waivers/ Deviations, in accordance with

contractual requirements, and forwards them through the ACO (who adds comments and

recommendations on DD Form 1998, Comments on Waivers, Deviations, or Engineering

Change Request) to the PCO. The Contracting Officer refers requests for product

Waivers/Deviations to the person performing QA functions at the ICP for evaluation and

recommendations.

f. The authority for disapproval of requests is as follows:

(1) The Contracting Officer has the authority to reject the

Waiver/Deviation request upon receipt of the request or after obtaining

recommendations from functional personnel (i.e., Quality Assurance,

Technical, Supply) or the Military Services (i.e., ESA, SPA, or

technical activity).

(2) Personnel performing quality functions may recommend rejection

of Waiver/Deviation requests upon receipt (without need for

forwarding the request to any other person for review). They may also

recommend rejection after reviewing approval recommendations

submitted by other functional elements; however, the Contracting

Officer will be responsible for the final determination when conflicting

recommendations are involved.

g. The authority for approval of requests is as follows:

(1) Authority to accept minor nonconformances of materiel is delegated

by the PCO to the CAO, except when authority for such acceptance is

specifically withheld by the PCO. The PCO makes a determination to

approve Waiver/Deviation requests, upon receipt of the request or after

obtaining recommendations from functional personnel, but all

Contracting Officer's approval determinations, for minor

nonconformances, must be submitted to higher authority at the ICP for

approval.

(2) For materiel having major nonconformances, the determination as

to suitability for use "as is," or with repair, is the responsibility of the

technical activity responsible for technical requirements. Each

Contracting Officer's approval determination, for a major

nonconformance, must be submitted to higher authority for approval.

h. Personnel performing quality functions will:

(1) Receive product Waiver/Deviation Requests from the PCO. If the

request does not contain comments/recommendations from the CAO,

the PCO will be so informed. Contractor requests will be controlled and

processed expeditiously to avoid production delays and possible claims

against the Government.

(2) Perform an initial evaluation of the request. The initial evaluation

will, as a minimum, consider the following factors:

(a) Classification of nonconformance (major or minor). (The determination to accept a

major nonconformance must be made by the activity responsible for technical

requirements and will be forwarded to the ICP's technical element for evaluation and

submission to the appropriate activity.)

(b) Comments and recommendations of a quality/technical nature made by the CAO or

other activity providing inspection services.

interchangeability, maintainability, effective use or operation, weight or appearance

(where a factor), and health or safety.

(d) The practicability and cost of rework or repair.

(e) Previous request(s) for Waiver(s)/Deviation(s) from the same contractor.

(f) Previous request(s) of the same nonconforming characteristics/deviations from the

same contractor and/or other contractors.

(g) Criticality of application, quality history of the item/contractor, commercial nature of

the item, unit cost of the item, and similar criteria.

(h) Concurrent requests for minor nonconformances from same contractor. Evaluation is

necessary to determine if the cumulative effect is a major nonconformance.

(3) Forward a written recommendation to the PCO, supported by

justification, to disapprove the Waiver/Deviation Request if the initial

evaluation indicates that the request should be disapproved. A

recommendation to disapprove should be provided when the

Waiver/Deviation is repetitive, the request is not fully justified, or it is

determined that approval is not in the best interest of the Government.

(4) If the initial evaluation indicates approval may be warranted, the

request will be forwarded to the responsible technical personnel for

evaluation/submission to the Military Service/Agency responsible for

technical requirements (i.e., the ESA, SPA).

(5) Forward requests for input/assistance to other functional personnel

at the ICP, if the determination cannot be made without assistance.

(6) Upon receipt of input from the ICP person/activity responsible for

technical requirements, perform a thorough analysis of the input.

Acceptance recommendations should be limited, and provided only in

those cases where the evaluation fully justifies the recommendation and

it has been determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Repetitive waivers should not be accepted.

(7) Upon completion of the evaluation:

(a) Provide a written recommendation to the PCO. A comprehensive technical evaluation

and economic analysis, as required, will support this recommendation. Conflicting

recommendations from other functional personnel should be included for the PCO's final

determination. For Requests concerning major nonconformances, include the

concurrence/nonconcurrence of the technical activity.

(b) Notify the PCO in writing when repetitive requests have been referred for evaluation

so the PCO can consider this as a factor when making determinations of a prospective

contractor's responsibility.

Waivers/Deviations indicate a specification/drawing change is required or beneficial to

the Government. Treat repetitive requests from different manufacturers as evidence of the

need for specification revision.

(d) Assure action is initiated as necessary to update the CTDF to prevent recurrence of

the same request for a Waiver/Deviation.

(e) Provide information as necessary to appropriate ICP personnel who maintain the

Waiver/Deviation register. Per the Waiver/Deviation Status Report (RCS

DLA(Q)2428(E-AQ)), each DLA ICP shall collect Waiver/Deviation data for each

Waiver/Deviation that is processed. This data focuses continued emphasis on repeat

requests for, and repeat approvals of, Waivers and Deviations for nonconforming

supplies and the need for Military Services to change Technical Data Package

requirements based on these repeat Waivers/Deviations. The data to be collected, and the

format for reporting, are identified in the Waivers and Deviations System Users Manual.

(f) Update appropriate quality history files and use Waiver/Deviation history as a basis

for determining the need to issue a QALI on current, pending, or future contracts.

WAIVER/DEVIATION (W/D) PROCESSING

+-------------------------------+

| Contractor initiates |

| request for W/D to CAO |

+-------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------+

| CAO reviews, provides DD Form 1998 |

| with recommendation to PCO |

+---------------------------------------+

Disapproval +---------------------------------------+

+---------------| PCO reviews request |

| +---------------------------------------+

| |

| +---------------------------------------+

| | PCO forwards to QA Person to evaluate |

\|/ +---------------------------------------+

| |

| +-----------------------------------------

| | QA person determines classification and

| | performs initial evaluation of W/D

| +-----------------------------------------

| | |

| +-------------------------+ +---------------------

------+

| | QA Person recommends | | QA person

determine |

| | disapproval to PCO | | approval may be

indicated |

| +-------------------------+ | and obtains input

from |

| | | other functional

people |

| | | QA person sends

W/D |

| | | to technical

person |

| | +---------------------

------+

| | |

\|/ \|/ +---------------------

------+

| | | QA person evaluates

input,|

| | | provides

recommendation |

| | +---------------------

------+

| | |

| +-----------------------------------+

| | PCO evaluates recommendations |

| +-----------------------------------+

| | |

| \|/ +---------------------

------+

| Disapproval | | PCO makes accept

decision |

+----------------------------+-----+---------------------

------+

\|/ |

| +-----------------------------------------------------

------+

| | MINOR | | MAJOR

| | PCO submits decision to | | PCO submits decision

to |

| | ICP Contracting | | Chief of Contracting

Office |

| | Division Chief | | for approval

| | for approval | |

| +-------------------------+ +-----------------------

------+

| | |

| +----------------------------------+

\|/ | W/D is approved/disapproved |

| +----------------------------------+

| |

| +--------------------------------------+

+---------------| PCO informs ACO, QAR, and contractor |

| END |

+--------------------------------------+

Figure 27-1

28. Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs) and other Customer Depot Complaints

a. Complaints of product/packaging quality deficiencies are sent to the ICP Focal Point,

which will:

(1) Provide a single face to customers/depots for receipt and system

entry of PQDRs and CDCs. See paragraph 30 for CDCS procedures.

(2) Distribute PQDRs and CDCs to appropriate ICP person for

resolution and response.

(a) Product/Packaging quality CDCs should be assigned to the person assigned to

perform quality functions on the item.

(b) The remaining CDCs will be distributed to other ICP personnel for action

commensurate with the type of deficiency reported. b. The following procedures apply

specifically to PQDRs. The same logic will be used for investigation and resolution of

other types of CDCs that involve product/packaging quality, such as Supply Discrepancy

Reports (SDRs) (formerly known as Reports of Discrepancies (RODs), FMS RODs

reporting quality defects, and Storage Quality Control Reports (DD Form 1225).

(1) Redirect complaints that are the responsibility of another activity or

ICP functional element. Advise the screening point, and ICP focal

point, as appropriate. Complaints submitted on the wrong form will not

be returned to the screening point but will be worked as if it arrived in

the right format.

(2) Determine if the item was procured under a Military Service

Contract (sometimes referred to as "local" procurement). If the date of

the Military Service Contract is after the date that item management

was transferred to DLA, the PQDR shall be determined to be invalid

and returned to the screening point. If the Military Service contract date

precedes the item transfer date, the PQDR should be resolved using all

available means.

(3) Validate the PQDR categorization.

(a) An initial review of the discrepancy should be made to verify that the PQDR has been

accurately categorized by the screening point in accordance with DLAD 4155.24 criteria.

If there is reason to believe that a Category I designation is not appropriate, the Military

Service screening point shall be contacted for authorization to change the Category I

designation. In no case will Category I PQDRs be downgraded to Category II without

authorization from the screening point.

(b) Categorize PQDRs not categorized by the Military Service/Agency screening point.

When appropriate, request assistance of the reporting activity in assigning a category.

PQDRs involving applications that may cause death, injury, severe occupational illness,

loss or major damage to a weapon system, critically restricts combat readiness, or would

result in a production line stoppage should be placed into Category I status. Category II

PQDRs that report critical application items, and/or safety conditions, should be handled

as expeditiously as a Category I PQDR, with immediate consideration of a system freeze

and alert notifications, and telephone and message communications should be used to the

maximum practical extent.

(4) Acknowledge receipt of Category I PQDRs within 24 hours.

Acknowledge receipt of Category II PQDRs.

(5) Review the PQDR for completeness. If essential information is

missing which precludes processing of the complaint, note the

information needed from the originator/screening activity or perform

research to gain additional insight into the problem.

(6) Start the 24-Hour Replacement procedures as follows: Call the

originator, acknowledging receipt of the PQDR and inquire if credit or

replacement item, if available, is required. (If the customer specifies

their desires in the complaint, calling them is unnecessary; however,

Action Office/QAS should contact customer with information

pertaining to replacements). If the PQDR is for low-dollar/low

significance items, or if it does not make sense to call the customer, the

24-Hour procedure does not apply.

(a) If credit is desired, initiate local credit procedures and annotate the PQDR CDCS

record. If partial replacement can only be offered, credit procedures will be followed for

difference.

(b) If replacement is desired and assets are available, notify Product Verification Program

(PVP) office to immediately check stock. If deficiency is one the Depot is capable of

detecting, they will ask the Depot to check stock.

disposition instructions in work center comment page with exact ship-to-address and

attention line. [2] If requesting return of deficient stock, annotate PQDR notifying

customer which depot/test site to return stock to and reminding customer to ship back

under original document number. FAX a copy of PQDR to customer for inclusion with

shipment so that the depot/test site can receipt in Condition Code K. Follow-up with the

customer until depot/test site receives deficient stock. [3] Forward the complaint to the

appropriate requisition processing personnel and charge the CDCS record to that code.

[4] Requisition processing personnel will input an exception Material Release Order

(MRO), using Priority Code 01 and Project Code "QDR". If the requisition number is in

the Active Requisition Control and Status File (ARCSF), they will use an assigned SCO

number. Signal Code "M" will be input and the requisitioner's ship-to DODAAC will be

provided in the supplementary address. If the requisition number is not in the ARCSF, the

original requisition number will be used to initiate the replacement shipment. Signal

Code "D" will be used if shipment is to go to the requisitioner, while Signal Code "M" is

used if the shipment is to go to the supplementary address. In all cases, the Directed

Action Code "7" will be used in card column 77 which allows the requisition to process

as a free issue. Requisition processing personnel will FAX a message/form letter and a

copy of the PQDR CDCS record to the depot with shipping instructions with the

appropriate document number. After actions are completed, requisition processing

personnel will charge the PQDR back to the Action Office for further review/action. [5]

Depot personnel will ship MRO, using assigned document number and specific address

and POC provided by Action Office. Copy of the PQDR CDCS record will be included in

each shipment and depot personnel will provide all appropriate shipping confirmation

data to SAMMS.

(d) If the materiel is found nonconforming by the Depot: [1] Depot personnel will notify

PVP office. [2] The PVP office will notify the Action Office. [3] Normal suspension

procedures will be followed. [4] The Action Office will notify the customer and initiate

credit.

(e) If the deficiency is one which cannot be detected by depot personnel, the PVP office

will initiate redistribution of either samples or entire PQDR replacement quantity to

appropriate test lab. [1] Lab personnel will notify PVP office of test results. [2] The PVP

office will notify the Action office.

(f) If the test lab finds the assets conforming and if enough assets are at test lab: [1]

Annotate the CDCS record of PQDR with disposition instructions in work center

comment page with exact ship-to-address and attention line. [2] If requesting return of

deficient stock, annotate PQDR notifying customer which depot/test site to return stock

to and reminding customer to ship back under original document number. FAX a copy of

PQDR to customer for inclusion with shipment so that the depot/test site can receipt in

Condition Code K. Follow-up with the customer until depot/test site receives deficient

stock. [3] Forward the complaint to the appropriate requisition processing personnel and

charge the CDCS record to that code. [4] Requisition processing personnel will input an

exception Material Release Order (MRO), using Priority Code 01 and Project Code

"QDR". If the requisition number is in the Active Requisition Control and Status File

(ARCSF), they will use an assigned SCO number. Signal Code "M" will be input and the

requisitioner's ship-to DODAAC will be provided in the supplementary address. If the

requisition number is not in the ARCSF, the original requisition number will be used to

initiate the replacement shipment. Signal Code "D" will be used if shipment is to go to

the requisitioner, while Signal Code "M" is used if the shipment is to go to the

supplementary address. In all cases, the Directed Action Code "7" will be used in card

column 77 which allows the requisition to process as a free issue. Requisition processing

personnel will FAX a message/form letter and a copy of the PQDR CDCS record to the

test lab with shipping instructions with the appropriate document number. After actions

are completed, requisition processing personnel will charge the PQDR back to the Action

Office for further review/action. [5] Test Lab personnel will ship MRO, using assigned

document number and specific address and POC provided by Action Office. Copy of the

PQDR CDCS record will be included in each shipment and lab personnel will provide all

appropriate shipping confirmation data to SAMMS.

(g) If not enough conforming assets are at test lab: [1] To satisfy total quantity, Action

office will determine shipping location (Depot and Test Lab, or Depot only) [2] Annotate

the CDCS record of PQDR with disposition instructions in work center comment page

with exact ship-to-address and attention line. [3] If requesting return of deficient stock,

annotate PQDR notifying customer which depot/test site to return stock to and reminding

customer to ship back under original document number. FAX a copy of PQDR to

customer for inclusion with shipment so that the depot/test site can receipt in Condition

Code K. Follow-up with the customer until depot/test site receives deficient stock. [4]

Forward the complaint to the appropriate requisition processing personnel and charge the

CDCS record to that code. [5] Requisition processing personnel will input an exception

Material Release Order (MRO), using Priority Code 01 and Project Code "QDR". If the

requisition number is in the Active Requisition Control and Status File (ARCSF), they

will use an assigned SCO number. Signal Code "M" will be input and the requisitioner's

ship-to DODAAC will be provided in the supplementary address. If the requisition

number is not in the ARCSF, the original requisition number will be used to initiate the

replacement shipment. Signal Code "D" will be used if shipment is to go to the

requisitioner, while Signal Code "M" is used if the shipment is to go to the supplementary

address. In all cases, the Directed Action Code "7" will be used in card column 77 which

allows the requisition to process as a free issue. Requisition processing personnel will

FAX a message/form letter and a copy of the PQDR CDCS record to the depot/lab with

shipping instructions with the appropriate document number. After actions are completed,

requisition processing personnel will charge the PQDR back to the Action Office for

further review/action. [6] Depot/Test Lab personnel will ship MRO, using assigned

document number and specific address and POC provided by Action Office. Copy of the

PQDR CDCS record will be included in each shipment and lab personnel will provide all

appropriate shipping confirmation data to SAMMS.

(h) If assets are found to be nonconforming at the test site: [1] Test site personnel will

notify PVP office. [2] The PVP office will notify the Action Office. [3] The Action

Office will notify lab personnel with disposition, either transfer materiel to Condition

Code H (DAC) or suspend materiel for further review. [4] The Action Office will notify

the customer and initiate credit.

(i) If Action Office ultimately determines that the PQDR was invalid and a replacement

item has been shipped, the action office will advise the customer and ascertain if the

customer wants to return the original parts or be billed. DFAS personnel must be notified

to perform billing action or establish a due-in.

(7) Establish an appropriate suspense for responding to complaints.

Suspenses for PQDRs will be established in accordance with

DLAD/DLAI 4155.24. Suspenses for responding to a DD 1225 is as

specified in DLAM 4140.2, Vol. III, Part I, ch 70. Suspense dates for

complaints other than DD 1225s, Storage Quality Control Reports, and

PQDRs will be as specified in applicable regulations. Establish an

effective system to ensure that suspense dates are met. If the suspense

date cannot be met, assure that interim replies, including subsequent

interim replies, are sent prior to the expiration of the established

suspense date.

(a) For CATEGORY I PQDRs, an interim or final reply will be sent to the component

screening point within 20 calendar days after the date the PQDR was received from the

screening point/originator. If an interim reply (including subsequent interim replies) is

sent, include status to date and a projected final reply date.

(b) For CATEGORY II PQDRs, an interim or final reply will be sent to the component

screening point within 30 calendar days (investigations not requiring exhibits) after the

date the PQDR was originally received from the screening point/originator. If an interim

reply (including subsequent interim replies) is sent, status to date and a projected date for

the final reply will be given.

(8) Review PQDR files (CDCS) and determine if the same deficiency is

currently under investigation or has been investigated and resolved

recently.

(a) If there is an ongoing investigation, a separate investigation should not be initiated;

any new information contained in the PQDR will be used to ensure that the deficiency is

properly resolved.

(b) If the same deficiency has been investigated and resolved, a new investigation should

only be initiated if there is reason to suspect that the case needs reconsideration.

Otherwise, the previous investigation results may be used to reply to the screening point.

(d) Send an information copy of the PQDR to the contractor if the CDCS cause code is

CN.

(9) Determine if you need to conduct an investigation. The item

complexity, cost, contract quantity, number of nonconforming items,

and frequency of occurrence (e.g., isolated instance) should be used as

evaluation criteria. Category I PQDRs and Category II PQDRs that

report critical or major defects must always be investigated.

Considerations are:

(a) Severity of Defect: When the defect is very minor in nature (for example, a scratch)

that doesn't affect form, fit, or function, and the benefit of correction is small, close out

per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure below.

(b) Criticality of item: When the item is insignificant (for example, a common/simple

item that is not used in any critical or weapon systems) and you determine that it is not

wide-spread (not many items are affected), close out per the "simplified or no-

investigation" procedure below.

the existence of any additional quality defects, close out per the "simplified or no-

investigation" procedure below.

(d) Information only: When the complaint originator indicates that they sent the

complaint "for information only" and you determine that the originator only wants credit

and/or disposition instructions, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation"

procedure below.

(e) Insufficient information: When you don't have vital information (For example, it is a

code and part number buy, or you know you don't have a contract number) to allow you

to sufficiently investigate, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure

below.

(f) Cost-factors: When there is insignificant or low-dollar values that do not merit an

investigation or action, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure

below.

(g) Other reasons: When an investigation would provide minimal information, and the

supervisor concurs, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure below.

(10) Simplified or No-Investigation Procedure: If any of the above in

paragraph (8) apply, and there are no opposing considerations, do the

following:

(a) Send a closing response to the screening point with the disposition of the item.

(b) Send a copy of the complaint to the support point (DCMC OFFICES) as "information

only" if the item was source-inspected.

(d) Close the complaint in CDCS with a cause code of "SI" (Simplified Investigation);

put an explanation in the CDCS cause narrative, the final reply, and the PQDR history

file, of why you did not investigate or take action. NOTE: DO NOT USE THE CAUSE

CODE OF CN UNLESS YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT THE CONTRACTOR

CAUSED THE DEFECT.

(11) Perform Investigations of PQDRs as follows:

(a) Determine if you need to review the contract and item/ contractor history. If you are

confident that you know the contract requirements and history of the item/contractor

sufficiently, you can by-pass the history review. If not, review the contract in question

(including any modifications) for warranty, technical and QA requirements, place of

inspection/acceptance activity, first article testing, and required delivery dates; review the

complaint history, item history, and contractor history. QA personnel should use all

available supporting Automated Information Systems (AIS) to accomplish the

investigations, including SAMMS, CDCS, QEP, Lab Test data or available Services'

deficiency data base.

(b) Determine if you need to review technical data. If you know that the defect is valid,

based upon your knowledge of the item, you can by-pass the technical data review. If not,

review technical data and any reports of examination, testing, or laboratory analysis of

the item.

numbers of items in stock that have this defect, you can by-pass the stock status review.

If not, check stock availability, status and locations. Initiate a systems freeze through the

Item Manager on all Category I PQDRs.

(d) Request stock screening action, for on-hand and due-in assets as appropriate, at DLA

and Military Service Storage locations to separate conforming and nonconforming items.

(See segregation and screening guidance in paragraph (13) (b) below). Request

suspension of nonconforming materiel.

(e) Determine if you need to request the Product Verification Office (PVP) to perform

testing or special inspection. If you can determine the scope of the defect (all items

produced/only a specific contract/only this isolated item) you can by-pass the special

inspection. Testing and inspection are valuable tools in validating complaints and

determining the degree of noncompliance and cause of defects. Therefore, test and

inspection shall always be considered when the degree, extent, and cause are unknown.

This is especially true for critical and major defects. When testing or inspection is not

performed in support of a PQDR investigation, the rationale for this decision shall be

documented in the final reply and PQDR history file. If a special inspection is needed,

request it immediately. Comply with guidance in paragraph 34 of this manual for special

inspections. If the item is already suspended from issue for some other reason, the special

inspection will still be performed.

(f) Determine if you need an investigation by Support Points (e.g., DCMC OFFICES,

CAO, ESA, SPA). [1] If you are confident that the deficiency is valid, and you know the

cause, you don't have to ask a Support Point for an investigation. You may want to send

an information copy of the PQDR and the final reply to the DCMC area office. [2] If

investigation by a support point is needed, send a written request with a copy of the

PQDR, a statement of the support required, a suspense date for a response, and the

pertinent background data which may be helpful in the investigation effort. Advance

requests by phone are encouraged. [3] If you ask the Support Point for an investigation,

maintain a suspense for the Support Point response. Initiate follow-up actions if an

interim or final reply is not received within 20 days for a Category I PQDR and 30 days

for Category II PQDRs (when no exhibit is required). [4] If the CAO support point is

involved in the investigation, advise them to immediately request an exhibit directly from

the holding activity. Assist the support point in obtaining exhibits, if necessary. [5]

Review support point responses for investigation action, correction of defect, and action

as to cause.

(g) Determine if you need an exhibit to evaluate the reported deficiency. If the deficiency

is evident from the description, or there are other reasons why an exhibit is not necessary

(for example, the contractor never requests an exhibit), release it from the holding

activity as soon as possible and by-pass the procedure to hold an exhibit. If you might

need an exhibit in the future, request the originator to hold the exhibit. When you know

an exhibit is needed, request it immediately (by phone, confirmed in writing) from the

holding activity. [1] Advise the holding activity to attach Product Quality Deficiency

Report Exhibit Tags, DD Form 2332, to exhibits. [2] If the deficiency can be evaluated

by ICP QA personnel, advise the holding activity to send the exhibit to the ICP. [3] If a

Government or commercial laboratory examination/test is required, make arrangements

for the test through the Product Verification Program (PVP) office and advise the holding

activity on where to send the exhibit.

(h) Determine the need for a QSMV. Visit depot and/or contractor facilities as necessary

to investigate and resolve the problem.

(i) Follow-up on delinquent/inadequate requests for exhibits, requests for special

inspections, and requests for support point investigations.

(12) Evaluate total investigations results. This includes the results of

contract review; complaint, item and contractor history review;

technical data package review; stock status review; inspection and test

of exhibit results; special inspection results; QSMV findings; and

support point investigation results.

(a) Based on the evaluation, the Action Point person responsible for quality functions will

determine whether the PQDR is valid or invalid and determine the assignable cause. The

causes of defects can be the responsibility of the contractor, Government, the materiel

user, or a combination thereof. When limited information precludes the determination of

the assignable cause, the Action Point will determine probable cause. Examples of causes

of defects are as follows:

[1] Contractor Noncompliance:

Lack of inspection/tests

Process controls not IAW requirements

Personnel/Machines not certified

Shipped without inspection

Acceptance on CoC

Lack of supply/vendor control

Contractor Noncompliance

Lack of packaging control

Substitution of material

[2] Government:

[a] Design

Inadequate design

Modification not depicted

Old material Cited

[b] Contractual - Technical - QA:

Wrong or missing technical data (revision/drawing)

Approved deviations not applied to CTDF

Inadequate or missing QA requirements

[c] Depot/Storage Sites:

Issued wrong item

Substituted item

Shipping/Handling

Inspection of materiel

[d] User

User misuse/abuse

Use of outdated technical manuals

Poor maintenance

NOTE: DO NOT USE THE CAUSE CODE OF CN UNLESS YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT THE

CONTRACTOR CAUSED THE DEFECT.

(b) If the PQDR is invalid, prepare and send the final response (see paragraph (16)). The reply need only

contain findings of the investigation. Advise the item manager to release frozen stock to an issuable status.

corrective action as to cause to preclude recurrence. Based on the determined cause, take

the actions in paragraphs (14) and (15) as determined appropriate.

(13) Perform Actions to Correct Existing Deficiencies:

(a) Issue Alert Notification(s), such as safety alerts on critical application items. Alert

other users and/or all known requisitioners. Advise Military Service Materiel Screening

Points to issue alert notifications.

(b) Perform segregation and screening inspection of existing product (through the

Product Verification Program (PVP) office. If you know there is no stock, or if there is

low risk of defective items getting out to the user, you can by-pass the stock screening

action. If there is stock, segregation shall be initiated in a timely manner to prevent the

issuing of nonconforming materiel. [1] Segregation is the action to separate some

materiel from the inventory and collect together as a new group, i.e., separation of the

materiel from a specific contract from other materiel with the same National Stock

Number (NSN). [2] Segregation of product by NSN/contract shall always be required

when product is considered to have critical or major defects. [3] Screening inspection is

the inspection of each item of product for designated characteristics and removal of

nonconforming items. [4] Quality Assurance personnel shall require a response which

documents the results of the segregation/screening requests. If a response is not received,

follow-up action shall be initiated. The response shall be retained in the PQDR history

file. [5] When the number of nonconforming products, or degree of nonconformance,

found during a screening inspection indicated that the lot is not acceptable, the lot failure

information will be transmitted to the contractor and the ICP Contracting Officer shall be

notified concurrently so that the Contracting Officer can effect actions for materiel

repair/replacement or recoupment of costs from the contractor. [6] Whenever segregation

and/or screening inspection is not requested, the rationale for this decision shall be

documented in the final reply and the PQDR history file.

enforcement. If it would serve no purpose to enforce the warranty (for example, the

warranty will expire before you can take actions, small dollar value benefit) you can by-

pass the warranty enforcement action. [1] Aggressive action shall be taken to obtain

contractor repair or replacement of nonconforming materiel when it is determined that the

contractor is responsible. This action is especially important for materiel with critical or

major defects. Complete research shall be performed to determine if an express or

implied warranty can be invoked. The following actions shall be taken: [a] If the materiel

was procured with a contract that contained a warranty clause, this clause shall be

invoked to obtain recoupment. [b] If there is no explicit warranty clause, but it is known

that the contractor provides limited or lifetime warranties on their products, this warranty

shall be used. One example of this is the lifetime warranty provided by the Federal Prison

Industries (UNICOR) on all items they supply. [c] The Contracting Officer shall be

apprised of the nonconformance and subsequent Government activity. [2] When no

warranty remedy can be used, the Action Point person investigating the deficiency shall

notify the Contracting Officer to request the contractor repair/replace the materiel at no

cost to the Government or that the Contracting Officer accept monetary consideration. [3]

If the contractor does not respond favorably to the above request, DLA ICP personnel

shall consider obtaining recoupment through legal means based upon contract clauses

that refer to latent defects, fraud, and gross mistakes amounting to fraud. Latent defects

are considered to be those that exist at the time of acceptance but cannot be discovered by

a reasonable inspection. They are not patent or observable. [4] All recoupment actions, as

well as determinations not to seek recoupment, shall be documented in the final reply and

the PQDR history file.

(d) Determine what the risks are for non-reclassification of stock. If there is no benefit,

the user will not receive defective items, and there will be no severe consequences to

DLA, you can by-pass this action. If there is benefit, recommend reclassification of stock

into appropriate condition code (i.e., downgrade of Type II shelf life item from condition

code A to condition code B).

(e) Determine if a QALI should be issued. If there is limited benefit to this action (for

example, if the contracted item is near completion and cannot be corrected before a QALI

is received), you can by-pass this action. If there is benefit, issue a QALI to inspection

activity on items currently being produced or to be produced on active contracts.

Advance phone calls are encouraged.

(f) Determine the need for current/future contract modification. If there is limited benefit

to this action (small numbers, small probability of defects), you can by-pass this action. If

there is benefit, request the Contracting Officer to modify active contracts and

active/pending/future solicitations.

(g) Obtain appropriate disposition instructions on the item from the item manager

(appropriate supply operations element) or the Contracting Officer. Disposition

instructions for the deficient item are usually always necessary. However, if you do not

believe there is a benefit to this, and your Branch Chief concurs with this determination,

you can by-pass this action. [1] If the decision is made that the customers must dispose of

nonserviceable materiel, an evaluation must be made regarding whether the item must be

demilitarized or mutilated. If the defect is severe enough that it is desired that the materiel

not be reutilized by Government activities or sold to private industry, mutilization

instructions must be given to the Screening Point for transmittal to the originator. When

giving mutilization instructions, specify how the items are to be mutilated. If the

originator does not have equipment or capability to perform required mutilization,

alternate instructions must be given for shipment to a place that can perform mutilization

and/or contracting for such mutilization with a Contractor. [2] On a stocked item(s)

customers are to be furnished disposition instructions authorizing turn-in (i.e., local

DRMO or return to DLA depot for contractor rework consolidation) of the deficient

stocked material and credit recommended as soon as the PQDR is validated. Customers

will not be expected to shoulder the burden for nonserviceable stocked materiel once the

discrepancy has been validated. Stocked materiel shipped by the Depots/Storage Sites to

defense contractors for repair will be returned to the Depot/Storage Site and not to the

customer. Materiel identified for disposal will not be returned to a Depot/Storage Site,

but will be disposed of locally by the customer. [3] On a nonstocked item (i.e., Direct

Vendor Delivery), customers are to be furnished disposition instructions which include an

accurate estimate (date, usually not to exceed 60 days from date of contractor receipt of

deficient material) of when nonstocked material, being shipped to a contractor facility for

repair/ replacement, may be returned to the customer. Credit will be authorized for this

material if it is not returned to the customer. ICP contracting personnel have been

instructed to carefully compare anticipated procurement lead-time to contractor

replacement turnaround time before providing disposition instructions on nonstocked

material. Customers may be instructed to return nonstocked items to contractors for

repair; however, better postaward visibility will be maintained and conveyed to the

customer through interim follow-up reports.

(h) Provide a copy of the PQDR to DFAS element for appropriate billing adjustment. If

there is no benefit to this action (for example, the user stated that they do not desire

credit), you can by-pass this action. You must still make a recommendation on credit in

the response letter.

(14) Perform Actions to Preclude Recurrence:

(a) Recommend specification/drawing changes to ESA/SPA as necessary. However, if

there is no benefit to this action (for example, the item will soon be obsolete), you can

by-pass this action.

(b) Change the ICP CTDF, for future buys, if it is determined that a change is necessary.

If there is no benefit to this, you can by-pass this action.

instructions are necessary.

(d) DLA Supply ICP personnel responsible for PQDR investigations shall provide copies

of contractor-caused PQDRs to the contractors. When the contractor is considered

responsible for the cause of the nonconformance, the investigator shall request the

contractor to provide, at no cost to the Government, confirmation of the cause and

identify the corrective action taken to prevent recurrence. To obtain repair/replacement of

contractor-caused defective materiel, the PQDR investigator shall request the Contracting

Officer to notify the contractor of the PQDR and request corrective action. The

investigator, to assure that action is taken, should perform follow-up. Corrective actions

taken, by DLA and the contractor, shall always be documented in the final reply and the

PQDR history file.

(e) Advise Contracting Officer of adverse contractor quality history.

(f) Notify and provide assistance to the GIDEP representative for use in preparation of a

GIDEP ALERT when deficiencies are traced to inadequate controls or use of improper

materials or processes during manufacturing and the material has both Government and

industrial application. Issuance of a GIDEP Alert is to be done in addition to alerting the

DoD customers. GIDEP Alerts are not a substitute for notifying customers. (15). A

PQDR shall be considered completed when investigation findings, disposition

instructions (provided by contracting/supply), field fix information, allowance for credit

or no credit have been determined, actions are taken to correct the deficiency, and actions

have been initiated to preclude recurrence. Upon this completion, a final reply shall be

sent to the complaint originator. Any further related actions, such as sending the PQDR to

contracting or counsel for action/litigation to be completed with the contractor, sending

the PQDR to DFAS for credit action to be completed, or sending the PQDR to an

Engineering Support Activity for a design change to be made, shall be performed after

final response completion.

(16) Prepare a final reply to the PQDR following guidance in

DLAD/DLAI 4155.24, Product Quality Deficiency Report Program.

Enclose a copy of the support point's DLA Form 1227, Product Quality

Deficiency Investigation Report, (when available/pertinent).

(17) Send final replies to the appropriate component screening point

[EXCEPTION: Responses to SF 368 forms/messages received from

Army Depots for Army materiel will be sent directly to the Depot, with

a copy furnished to the Army screening point]. Category I PQDR

responses will be signed by the ICP managers (or acting managers)

assigned responsibility for the item/groups of items that provide overall

direction/oversight control of the quality processes without power of re-

delegation. Category II PQDR responses will be signed, as a minimum,

by the supervisor (or acting supervisor). Signatures on final replies

constitute management's documentation of the determination that the

PQDR process was correctly implemented and sound technical

decisions were achieved.

(18) After final response has been provided to the screening point,

monitor all actions initiated to assure they are completed (e.g.,

specification or drawing change, stock screening, return/disposal of

exhibits, review of new solicitations/contracts for inclusion of CTDF

changes). Establish control to assure follow-up actions are completed.

(19) Update quality history files. The establishment of a proper audit

trail for all pertinent actions and decisions related to the processing of

each deficiency report and related materiel is essential and all actions

must be properly documented. The final reply represents all

comprehensive documentation, including decisions pertinent to testing,

screening, and feedback to contractors. If it is determined inappropriate

to place this documentation in the final reply, the PQDR history file

should contain the documentation. In addition to the PQDR history file,

documentation of the full PQDR investigation and resolution actions

should be placed in the automated deficiency reporting system. See

paragraph 43.

29. CUSTOMER/DEPOT COMPLAINT E-MAIL PROCEDURES. The Military

Services, DLA ICPs, and Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC) have the

capability to send and receive Electronic Mail (e-mail) messages that report complaints

on DLA materiel. DLA elements (both ICPs and DCMC) will use e-mail to the maximum

extent, in sending and receiving e-mail messages that transmit complaints, information

about complaints, complaint investigation results, and responses to complaints.

a. The ICP Focal Point is responsible for receiving and controlling e-mail complaints

transmitted to them through the e-mail system and forwarding them to the appropriate

Action Points. The ICP Focal Point will:

(1) Establish and maintain a e-mail mailbox address that will serve as

the ICP's central point for the receipt of e-mail complaints that are

originated by DLA's Military Service customers.

(2) Receive e-mail complaints that are transmitted to the ICP and

maintain archival files of complaints that are received. E-mail

mailboxes should be checked at least once per day for incoming

complaint messages.

(3) Use the e-mail complaints that are received as basic source

documents for entry of complaint information into the Customer Depot

Complaint System (or other complaint computer systems as

applicable).

(4) Transmit the e-mail complaint to the appropriate action office.

(5) On an exception and as-needed basis, provide hard-copy printouts

of complaints (or re-transmit e-mail documents) to replace lost

documents, or to provide evidence of receipt times.

(6) The ICP Focal Point will not be required to transmit complaints via

e-mail to Support Points. If the ICP Focal Point receives investigation

results from Support Points, the messages received will be forwarded to

the appropriate Action Point without need for entry into the CDCS

system.

(7) The ICP Focal Point will not be required to transmit complaints via

e-mail to Screening Points/Originating Points unless an agreement

between organizations is made to allow this. This agreement shall be in

writing.

b. The ICP Action Points will:

(1) Receive e-mail complaints that are transmitted to their address from

the ICP Focal Point. Complaints received directly from originators will

be transferred to the ICP Focal Point. E-mail mailboxes should be

checked at least once per day for incoming complaint messages.

(2) Send complaints to Support Points, as needed for investigation, and

e-mail formatted complaints, as necessary, to the appropriate Support

Points (i.e., Deficiency Report Program Managers at DCMC offices).

E-mail addresses for Deficiency Report Program Managers can be

found through the Internet at: http://www.dcmc.dla.mil. All complaints

will be sent with a message that includes: a statement of the support

required (e.g., investigation or information only), a suspense date for

the response (normally 30 days for a Category II Product Quality

Deficiency Report (PQDR)), and the pertinent background data which

may be helpful in the investigation effort.

(3) Receive complaint investigation responses, and requests for

additional information, via e-mail. E-mail mailboxes should be checked

at least once per day for e-mail correspondence.

(4) Complaints should be sent "(R)registered" with a return receipt

requested. The Action Point that sends the complaint will monitor the

system to assure that the addressee received the complaint.

(5) The ICP Action Points will send complaint responses to Screening

Points/Originating Points. The e-mail address of the Point that sent the

original e-mail complaint will be used unless other arrangements are

made with the Screening Point/Originating Point. The e-mail responses

will be accompanied by an attachment of the Support Point's DLA

Form 1227 Format and will include all information required in

paragraph 27 of this manual.

c. The ICP Control Point is responsible for periodically analyzing the processes and

results of e-mail complaint transmission, to assure the e-mail system is operating

satisfactorily, and taking appropriate action as necessary.

30. CUSTOMER DEPOT COMPLAINT SYSTEM (CDCS)

a. The CDCS is designed to:

(1) Automate the routine tasks involved with the processing of

complaints at ICPs. These routine tasks include capability to:

(a) Generate a control number for the complaint.

(b) Search and extract information from existing data files.

(d) Collect and retain complaint, investigation, and resolution information.

(2) Control the status and aging of complaints. The CDCS will:

(a) Provide information, track the complaint's progress and status, including sequential

assignment within ICP, date transferred, length of stay, and new location.

(b) Establish suspense dates for aging control.

(3) Provide information to aid in investigation of complaints, which

includes the capability to:

(a) Notify Supply and Contracting personnel of complaint assignment.

(b) Generate a notification to a Depot that investigation or coordination is required and

transmit the report for Depot action.

(4) Provide notification to contracting personnel on the number and

type of complaints.

(5) Provide input to a contractor performance history report for

Contracting Officers, Quality Assurance personnel, and other interested

parties.

(6) Provide reports to Business Office/DFAS personnel of all credits

granted to assist them in maintaining and analyzing accounts and

claims receivable. Each ICP that has implemented the CDCS has a

focal point for receipt and processing of all CDCs, action points which

investigate, resolve, and respond to complaints, and a control point

which analyzes and controls the CDCS at the ICP. b. Focal Point

personnel will:

1. Receive and perform initial entry of customer depot complaints into CDCS.

(a) All copies of the complaints will be dated with date of receipt on the top right corner

of the form or document immediately upon receipt.

(b) Complaints received on forms or message format will be entered directly into the

CDCS system.

to the focal point. However, if they are, the complaints received by phone at the focal

point will be put on the form to which the complaint refers (e.g., product quality

complaint information will be put on an SF-368). The information on these forms will be

entered directly into the CDCS system.

(d) Check for basic information. If basic information (NSN, Condition Code, Contract,

Delivery Number, Prime, Quantity, Dollar Value, and Discrepancy) is not on

form/message document, the receiving clerk will attempt to contact the originator for the

information. If originator is unavailable, or information is not quickly retrievable, the

clerk will not pursue the missing information.

(e) Evaluate complaints to determine if the complaint is a new complaint or a follow-up.

If it is determined to be a new complaint, it will be evaluated to determine if it requires

research/resolution or if it is for information only. [1] Follow-ups will be entered as a

maintenance action using published terminal procedure. [2] Complaints determined to be

information only will be closed at the time of new complaint entry with the hard copy

forwarded to the appropriate office conspicuously marked "Information Only." [3] The

data entry personnel will enter all available data into the system, including mandatory and

optional data. [4] If optional data (all except NSN & screening point) is not available or is

unobtainable, the field will be left blank. Under no circumstances will dummy or

nonstandard codes be used. [5] The focal point creates a new record. [a] Data entry clerks

will prioritize complaints in the following order for processing:

PRIORITY TYPE OF DOCUMENT

1 Category I PQDRs (SF-368/message/phone)

2 Category II PQDRs (SF-368)

3 Audit Substandards

4 Contract receipt SDRs (SF-364)

5 Packaging SDRs (SF-364)

6 DISREPs (SF-361)

7 Depot Complaints (DD-1225)

8 Field SDRs (SF-364)

9 Customer Returns (SF-364)/

10 Any other

[b] Use published terminal procedure for entering data elements. [c] Initial status will be

entered using the code for the action office that has responsibility. [d] Data element

"Discrepancy" will be put into abbreviated English as much as possible to fit maximum

information in the 64 spaces.

(6) The control number that is assigned by the computer will be put on

original document/form in the top right corner.

(f) Process rejects per published terminal procedures.

(g) Forward complaint to the proper office. Duplicating and filing a copy of the

complaint at the focal point may be performed at the option of the focal point. Category I

PQDRs and time sensitive complaints will be hand-carried to the proper office.

(h) Perform deletion, reactivation of records, and changes to the received date.

(1) A copy of the PQDR or data entry request sheet will be provided to

the focal point by the requesting office. (Incorrect data entry requests

should be resolved before computer entry.)

(2) Enter information required on screen per published procedures.

c. The Control Point will:

(1) Receive, review, analyze, and distribute all ICP internal CDCS

reports and mail CDCS external reports.

(2) Use CDCS scheduled product reports to control complaints for the

activity. Specifically, report numbers F-477, F-485, F-486, F-488, F-

489 will be analyzed to determine the numerical trends. Adverse or

significant trends will be reported to management. Trends to be

analyzed are as follows:

(a) Report F-485 - total actions and each document/discrepancy type.

(b) Report F-486 - total actions and each category of aging for each status code and

discrepancy type.

complaints of each element of organizations.

(d) Report F-478 - higher age groups and significant dollar values.

(3) Use CDCS scheduled products in conjunction with sampling

techniques, to assure the focal point and all other organizations are

entering complete and accurate data into CDCS.

(4) Perform trend analysis.

(a) Trends of NSNs, contractors, shipping activity, CAO, and screening point/originators

will be analyzed separately using CDCS products F-478, F-481, F-487A, F-487B, F-

490B, F-491. Minimum analysis will be performed for each area as follows: [1] Most

complaints. [2] Fewest complaints. [3] Recurring problems. [4] Significant deviations of

report numbers and report quantities.

(b) Report F-488 will be used to analyze increases and decreases in occurrence

percentage for each element of discrepancy, cause, disposition, and correction.

will be provided.

(d) Collect information on the effectiveness and efficiency of CDCS and propose

changes/take action as necessary.

d. The Quality Assurance Action Points are the personnel in the ICP's Commodity

Business Units (CBUs)/Product Centers who are responsible for receiving, investigating,

resolving, and responding to complaints. They will:

(1) Receive complaints from the focal point. The forms/documents will

have a date and a control number in the upper right corner of the

document. Forms/documents/messages received without a date and

control number will be transmitted to the focal point.

(2) Review the complaint for completeness to perform the

investigation/resolution and contact the originator (or perform research)

to obtain missing or additional information as necessary. If additional

information is obtained or information correction is necessary, the

additional data will be entered into the CDCS by the Action Officer.

(3) Receive phone complaints.

(a) Information received by phone will be put on the form to which the complaint refers

(e.g., product quality complaints will be put on an SF-368).

(b) The form will be transmitted to the focal point for processing. If the report is a

Category I PQDR or a time sensitive complaint, a duplicate of the report will be made

and retained to begin immediate resolution action and the original form will be hand-

carried to the focal point for processing.

(4) Control complaints in its area.

(a) A listing of new complaints (i.e., CDCS Report F477A, F477B,F479A, or F479B)

assigned to the action point will be obtained periodically, but at least monthly, and

annotated with the assigned Action Officer's name to assure that all complaints entered

into the CDCS have been received from the focal point and assigned for action.

(b) Scheduled products and reports will be obtained and reviewed by supervisor

personnel and the Action Officer, as required but at least monthly, to maintain

cognizance over workload, open actions, near due, and past due suspense of complaints.

(5) Use complaint history information for investigation of complaints.

(a) The action office will check the CDCS records using the CDCS terminal and, if

necessary, will check Report F-480, Product Quality Deficiency report, and Report F-

499, Closed Item by NSN (on microfiche), to assure that:

(b) Check that the complaint is not a duplicate of a previously entered report. Duplicates

will be returned to the focal point with a request for the complaint to be removed from

CDCS.

previously. The action of the resolution will be performed, if appropriate, and closing

actions will be made.

(d) Check that the complaint is not similar to a previous complaint that has been resolved.

The action point will determine the applicability of performing a similar resolution or

increasing corrective action measures due to the recurring nature of the complaint.

(e) Check that a trend is not developing that would indicate contractor, NSN, CAO, or

shipping activity problems are occurring.

(6) Enter interim action and status information as soon as it is known

and provide the hard copy to the new action point. At this time, the

discrepancy code should be entered if known.

(7) Enter closing action information into the CDCS as follows:

(a) Additional basic information that assures a complete record.

(b) Closing action code information. CDCS codes to be used by Quality Assurance

personnel are listed on figure 30-1.

(d) Closing narratives. The final discrepancy and closing narratives will be written in

abbreviated English to assure maximum information is provided in the space provided.

Examples: (Cause) KTR at fault-Worn fixture in Mach Oper-only KR 81-C-XXX

involved (Disposition) KTR repaired-no cost to Govt-screened stoks-rtnd mat to DDSP

as CCA (Correction) KTR replaced fixture & dev new Mach Oper proced-DCMC to

monitor

(8) Prepare and mail responses, as necessary, to the originator or

screening point.

(9) Enter "Completion" date into the CDCS.

(10) Maintain a copy of the complaint and the response.

(11) If there are additional action points where the complaint is to be

processed (i.e., to the Comptroller for credit) enter the appropriate

status code and provide a copy of the complaint to the new action point.

If no further action points are required, the Action Officer will enter the

closure date into the system and close the record.

CDC CODES

Cause Codes

CODE EXPLANATION

CA Catalog

Incompatibility/Error

CE Contracting Error

CN Contractor

Noncompliance

CP Contractor

Noncompliance (Packaging Contractor)

CR Carrier

Responsibility

CS Contractor

Noncompliance (Subcontractor)

DE Contract

Administration Services QA Error

EE Engineering Error

EL Customer Alert

FD Multiple

Requisitions (DFAS processing)

ID Inadequate

Contract Technical Data Error

IE Item/Equipment

Incompatibility

IS Inadequate

Specifications

MA Misapplication by

Customer (User Error)

ME Maintenance Error

MM Misidentified

Material

OA Invalid Complaint

Use Only

OT Other/Does Not

Apply

QA Inadequate

Contractual Quality Assurance Requirements

RE Requisitioner

error

SA Screening

Activity Error

SE Engineering

Support Activity/Specification Preparing Activity/Service

User Error

SI Simplified

Investigation - cause not determined

SL Expired Shelf-

Life

SR Shipper

Responsibility

SU Supply Operations

Error

TR Transshipper

Activity/Other Responsibility

UA Unapproved Source

US Unapproved

Substitute

WE Storage Site Error

FIGURE 30-1

Correction to Cause Code

CODE

EXPLANATION

AA Advise Screening

Activity

AC Advise Contracting

AO Advise Supply

Operations

AQ Advise Quality

Assurance

AR Advise

Requisitioner as to their Appropriate Action

AS Advise Technical

Support

AT Advise Storage &

Transportation

CA Correspondence

with Contract Administration Service

CC Correspondence

with Contractor

CT Correspondence

with Cognizant Transportation Officer

IS Issue Quality

Assurance Letter Of Instruction (QALI) by NSN or

Contractor

NO No Action Required

RA Request Contract

Administration Services QA Support

RB Review Operational

Procedures for Adequacy

RC Request Center-

Wide Consolidated Position

RD Request Depot QA

Support

RE Review Policy

RF Review Storage

Serviceability Standards for Shelf-Life Requirements

RH Request HQ-DLA

Assistance

RI Invalid Complaint

RJ Request Joint

Quality System Review

RM Recommend Contract

Modification

RO Request PostAward

on Current Contracts

RP Request PreAward

Survey Prior To Future Contracts

RQ Request Special

Inspections

RR Review Item to

Determine Appropriate Inspection Point and/or Quality

Requirement

RS Recommend

Specification/Standard/Drawing Review

RT Request Testing

RU Recommend Carrier

Disqualification

SQ Schedule Quality

Systems Management Visit

UC Update Catalog

Description

UT Update Contract

Technical Data File

FIGURE 30-1

Discrepancy Code

CODE

EXPLANATION

Stored Material

A1 Condition of

Stored Material Changed because of Damage

A2 Condition of

Stored Material Changed Because of Deterioration

A3 Stored Material

is Misidentified

A4 Stored Material

is Incomplete

A5 Stored Material

Requires Repair

Condition of Material

C1 In Condition

Other Than That Indicated on Release/Receipt Document

C2 Expired Shelf-

Life

C3 Damaged Parcel

Post Shipment

C4 Exceeded Delivery

Age Control

C5 Damaged Freight

Shipment

C6 Damage Caused by

Pilferage, Vandalism or Theft

Documentation

D1 Supply

Documentation Not Received

D2 Supply

Documentation Illegible or Mutilated

D3 Supply

Documentation Incomplete, Improper or Without Authority

Wood Products (Can be redefined by centers to reflect

unique discrepancies)

L1 Moisture Exceeds

Allowable Percentage

L2 Not Treated In

Accordance With Specifications

L3 Product Off Grade

L4 Improper Size

L5 Improper Tally

L6 Improper or No

Grademark On Product

L7 Rotten Product

L8 Splits, Excessive

Wane, Scant, or Not End Trimmed (One or All)

Misdirected (Redefined temporarily for Year 2000

Problems)

M1 Y2K Problem

Overage

O1 Quantity Received