Apqp

Click on the title below and you will be linked to the
Table of Contents appropriate worksheet. To get back to the Table of Contents,

use the worksheet tab keys at the bottom or click on the back
key at the top.
Appendix Reference Revision
1 Team Feasibility Commitment Letter Appendix_5 8/11/2004
2 APQP Open Issues Appendix_8 8/11/2004
3 APQP Timing Plan Appendix_9 8/11/2004
4 APQP Contact List Appendix_21 8/11/2004
5 AIAG APQP Checklists Appendix_11 8/11/2004
6 Program Review Checklist- Paper Appendix_6 8/11/2004
7 Program Review Checklist- Electronic Appendix_6 8/11/2004
8 Run @ Rate Plan Appendix_14 8/11/2004
9 Run @ Rate Summary Worksheet Appendix_15 8/11/2004
10 Run @ Rate Worksheet Definitions Appendix_15 8/11/2004
11 Run @ Rate Supplementary Form Appendix_15 8/11/2004
12 Run @ Rate Review Worksheet Appendix_15 8/11/2004
13 Run @ Rate Reply Form (Supplier Monitored R@R) New 8/11/2004
14 Delphi PFMEA Severity Rankings New 8/11/2004
15 Delphi PFMEA Occurrence Rankings New 8/11/2004
16 Delphi PFMEA Detection Rankings New 8/11/2004
8/04
Delphi Global Supply Management
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT

Customer: Date:
Part Number: Part Name:
Feasibility Considerations
Our product quality planning team has considered the following questions, not intended to be all-inclusive in performing a
feasibility evaluation. The drawings and/or specifications provided have been used as s basis for analyzing the ability to meet
all specified requirements. All "no" answers are supported with attached comments identifying our concerns and/or proposed
changes to enable us to meet the specified requirements.
Yes No Consideration
Is product adequately defined (application requirements, etc.) to enable feasibility evaluation?

Can Engineering Performance Specifications be met as written?
Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing?
Can product be manufactured with Cpk's that meet requirements?
Is there adequate capacity to produce product?
Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques?
Can the product be manufactured without incurring any unusual:
* Costs for capital equipment?
* Costs for tooling?
* Alternative manufacturing methods?
Is statistical process control required on product?
Is statistical process control presently used on similar products?
Where statistical process control is used on similar products:
* Are the processes in control and stable?
* Are Cpk's greater than 1.33?
Conclusion
Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.
The current designed product is feasible, but based on our analysis,

Feasible
the attached changes are recommended (see attached)
Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirements.
Sign-Off
Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date
Revised:
08/11/04
RFQ/AP Number:
QUALITY ASSURANCE-SUPPLIER
The supplier shall adhere to the Supplier Quality expectations contained in the quality section of the Delphi Global Supply
Management supplier guidelines and any other divisional or program specific requirements referenced in the RFQ.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW
Please complete the attached 'Team Feasibility Commitment' form. Attach the form and any comments you may have regarding
the design of this part/system (e.g. Specs missing or not understood, Design alternatives or assumptions, etc.) If no remarks,
please state so!!
Item Remarks Actions from Customer (mandatory if

feasibility review)
Part Specific Quality requirements? * No Yes, see enclosed
Company: DUNS#
Signature: Title Date
* Part Specific Quality requirements: Engineering or other Delphi Statements of Requirements that may be
included along with the design records in the RFQ package. Also may include unique Delphi or Delphi
Customer specific quality requirements.
Revised:
08/11/04
APQP Open Issues
Supplier/Mfg
Location: Part Number(s):
Supplier Contact: Program(s):
Delphi SQE Contact: Part Name:
Issue Assigned Forecast

No. Issue Issues Responsibility Date/Status Action Plan Completion Progress
Origin/Date Description and/or Sketch Date Date
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Progress Key:
Issue Identified Action Plan Proposed Action Plan Implemented Issue Resolved Revised
8/11/2004
APQP Timing Plan
Supplier Duns: Part Number(s):
Supplier/Mfg Location: (CL) (CL) (CL)
PPAP Date:
Supplier Contact: Description:

Supplier Telephone:
Tool Supplier (If applicable):
AQE/SQE Contact:
AQE/SQE Telephone: MY/Program: SOP Date:
Program Event Start Finish Status Comments

Planned Actual
(mm/dd/yy) (mm/dd/yy) Planned Actual
1) Summit Team Feasibility Commitment Form
2) Source Selection by Delphi P.O. Issued
3) Initiate APQP Activity
4) Develop Product Quality Timing Plan
5) Complete Preliminary Process Flow Diagram
6) Complete Preliminary Listing of Special Product and Process Characteristics
7) Design FMEA- Develop or Obtain Copy
8) Design Review
9) Review Specifications:Engineering, Material, Drawing
10) Review Subcontractor APQP Status
11) Complete Facility & Layout
12) Complete Machinery & Equipment , Tooling Design & Build
13) Prototype Builds
14) Gage Reviews- Design, Build, R&R
15) Submit Team Feasibility Commitment Form - Design
16) Review Quality Systems-Procedures and Operator Work Instructions
17) Complete Final Production Process Flow Chart
18) Complete Process FMEA
19) Complete Pre-Launch Control Plan
20) Define Packaging Specifications
21) Complete PPAP Production Run, Capability Studies, Production Control Plan
22) Submit Supplier PPAP
23) Conduct Run @ Rate
24) Complete Early Production Containment Plan
Potential Issues exists (comments must be noted)
As of: ____________________ Revised

08/11/04
Supplier Quality APQP Project Contact List
Supplier Code Manufacturing Address
Supplier Name
Contacts Name and Title Mailing Address and E-Mail Address Contact Numbers
Sales Contact
Product Engineer
Quality Resident
Program Manager
in Sales Office
Program Manager
in Manufacturing Facility
APQP Contact
Quality Manager
Quality Engineer
1st Shift Contact
2nd Shift Contact
3rd Shift Contact
PRR Response
Responsibility
Delphi Engineering
Delphi Buyer
Delphi SQE
Revised
08/11/04
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No.
Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Responsible Date
1 Was the SFMEA and/or DFMEA prepared
using the Chrysler, Ford and General
Motors Potential Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis (FMEA) reference manual?
2 Have Historical campaign and warranty
data been reviewed?
3 Have similar part DFMEAs been
4 Does the SFMEA and/or DFMEA identify
Special Characteristics?
5 Have design characteristics that affect high
risk priority failure modes been identified?
6 Have appropriate corrective actions been
assigned to high risk priority numbers?
assigned to high severity numbers?
8 Have risk priorities been revised when
corrective actions have been completed
and verified?
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 1
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Responsible Date
A. GENERAL
Does the design require:
1 New Materials?
2 Special Tooling?
3 Has assembly build variation analysis been
considered?
4 Has Design of Experiments been
5 Is there a plan for prototypes in place?
6 Has a DFMEA been completed?
7 Has a DFMA been completed?
8 Have service and maintenance issues been
considered?
9 Has Design Verification Plan been
10 If yes, was it completed by a cross
11 Are all specified tests, methods, equipment
and acceptance criteria clearly defined and
understood?
12 Have Special Characteristics been
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 4
Revised
08/11/04
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST - CONTINUED

Responsible Date
A. GENERAL - CONTINUED
13 Is bill of material complete?
14 Are Special Characteristics properly docum
B. Engineering Drawings
15 Have dimensions that affect fit, function
and durability been identified?
16 Are reference dimensions identified to
minimize inspection layout time?
17 Are sufficient control points and datum
surfaces identified to design functional
18 gages?
Are tolerances compatible with accepted
manufacturing standards?
19 Are there any requirements specified that
cannot be evaluated using known
C. Engineering Performance Specifications
inspection techniques?
20 Have all special characteristics been
21 Is test loading sufficient to provide all
conditions, i.e., production validation and
end use?
22 Have parts manufactured at minimum and
maximum specifications been tested?
23 Can additional samples be tested when a
reaction plan requires it, and still conduct
regularly scheduled in-process tests?
24 Will all product testing be done in house?
25 If not, is it done by an approved
Revision Date:
Pg. 2 of 4
Revised
08/11/04

Responsible Date
C. Engineering Performance Specifications - continued
26 Is the specified test sampling size and/or
frequency feasible?
27 If required, has customer approval been
obtained for test equipment?
D. Material Specification
28 Are special material characteristics
29 Are specified materials, heat treat and
surface treatments compatible with the
durability requirements in the identified
30 environment?
Are the intended material suppliers on the
customer approved list?
31 Will material suppliers be required to
provide certification with each shipment?
32 Have material characteristics requiring
inspection been identified?
If so,
33 * Will characteristics be checked in-
34 * Is test equipment available?
35 * Will training be required to assure
accurate
results?
36 Will outside laboratories be used?
37 Are all laboratories used accredited (if
Revision Date:
Pg. 3 of 4
Revised
08/11/04

Responsible Date
D. Material Specification - continued
Have the following material requirements been considered:
38 * Handling?
39 * Storage?
40 * Environment?
Revision Date:
Pg. 4 of 4
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Responsible Date
Has tool and equipment design provided for:
1 * Flexible Systems, e.g. cell mfg.?
2 * Quick change?
3 * Volume fluctuations?
4 * Mistake proofing?
Have lists been prepared identifying:
5 * New equipment?
6 * New tooling?
7 * New test equipment?
Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for:
8 * New equipment?
9 * New tooling?
10 * New test equipment?
11 Will a preliminary capability study be
conducted at the tooling and/or equipment
12 manufacturer?
Has test equipment feasibility and
accuracy been established?
13 Is a preventative maintenance plan
complete for equipment tooling?
14 Are setup instructions for new equipment
and tooling complete and understandable?
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 2
Revised
08/11/04
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST CONTINUED

Responsible Date
15 Will capable gages be available to run
preliminary process capability studies at
the equipment suppliers facility?
16 Will preliminary process capability studies
be run at the producing plant?
17 Have process characteristics that affect
special product characteristics been
18 identified?
Were special product characteristics used
in determining acceptance criteria?
19 Does the manufacturing equipment have
sufficient capacity to handle forecasted
production and service volumes?
20 Is testing capacity sufficient to provide
adequate testing?
Revision Date:
Pg. 2 of 2
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Responsible Date
1 Is the assistance of the customer's quality
assurance or product engineering activity
needed to develop or concur to the control
2 plan?
Has the supplier identified who will be the
quality liason with the customer?
3 Has the supplier identified who will be the
quality liason with the suppliers?
4 Has the quality system been reviewed
using the Chrysler, Ford, and General
Motors Quality System Assessment?
Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:
5 * Control plan requirements?
6 * Layout inspection?
7 * Engineering performance testing?
8 * Problem resolution analysis?
Is there a documented training program that:
9 * Includes all employees?
10 * Lists whose been trained?
11 * Provides a training schedule?
Has training been completed for:
12 * Statistical Process Control?
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 4
Revised
08/11/04
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST CONTINUED

Responsible Date
Has training been completed for: - CONTINUED
13 * Capability studies?
14 * Problem solving?
15 * Mistake proofing?
16 * Other topics as identified?
17 Is each operation provided with process
instructions that are keyed to the control
18 plan?
Are standard operator instructions
available at each operation?
19 Were operator/team leaders involved in
developing standard operator instructions?
Do inspection instructors include:
20 * Easily understood engineering
specifications?
21 * Test frequencies?
22 * Sample sizes?
23 * Reaction plans?
24 * Documentation?
Are visual aids:
25 * Easily understood?
26 * Available?
Revision Date:
Pg. 2 of 4
Revised
08/11/04

Responsible Date
Are visual aids: - CONTINUED
27 * Accessible?
28 * Approved?
29 * Dated and current?
30 Is there a procedure to implement,
maintain, and establish reaction plans for
statistical control charts?
31 Is there an effective root cause analysis
system in place?
32 Have provisions been made to place the
latest drawings and specifications at the
point of inspection?
33 Are forms/logs available for appropriate
personnel to record inspection results?
Have provisions been made to place the following at the monitored operation:
34 * Inspection gages?
35 * Gage instructions?
36 * Reference Samples?
37 * Inspection logs?
38 * Have provisions been made to certify
routinely calibrate gages and test
Have required measurement system capability studies been:
39 * Completed?
Revision Date:
Pg. 3 of 4
Revised
08/11/04

Responsible Date
Have required measurement system capability studies been: - CONTINUED
40 * Acceptable?
41 Are layout inspection equipment and
facilities adequate to provide initial and
ongoing layout of all details and
components?
Is there a procedure for controlling incoming products that identifies:
42 * Characteristics to be inspected?
43 * Frequency of inspection?
44 * Sample size?
45 * Designated location for approved
46 * Disposition of nonconforming
47 Is there a procedure to identify, segregate
and control nonconforming products to
prevent shipment?
48 Are rework/repair procedures available?
49 Is there a procedure to requalify
repair/reworked material?
50 Is there an appropriate Lot Traceability
51 Are periodic audits of ongoing products
planned and implemented?
52 Are periodic surveys of the quality system
planned and implemented?
53 Has the customer approved the packaging
specification?
Revision Date:
Pg. 4 of 4
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Responsible Date
1 Does the floor plan identify all required
process and inspection points?
2 Have clearly marked areas for all material,
tools, and equipment?
3 Has sufficient space been allocated?
Are process and inspection areas:
4 * Of adequate size?
5 * Properly lighted?
6 Do inspection areas contain necessary
equipment and files?
Are there adequate:
7 * Staging areas?
8 * Impound areas?
9 Are inspection points logically located to
prevent shipment of nonconforming
10 products?
Have controls been established to
eliminate the potential for an operation,
including outside processing, to
contaminate or mix similar products?
11 Is material protected from overhead or air
handling systems contamination?
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 2
Revised
08/11/04
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST - CONTINUED

Responsible Date
12 Have final audit facilities been provided?
13 Are controls adequate to prevent
movement of nonconforming incoming
material to storage or point of use?
Revision Date:
Pg. 2 of 2
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST

Responsible Date
1 Does the floor chart illustrate the sequence
of production and inspection stations?
2 Were all the appropriate FMEAs (SFMEA,
DFMEA) available and as aids to develop
the process flow chart?
3 Is the flow chart keyed to product and
process checks in the control plan?
4 Does the flow chart describe how the
product will move, i.e., roller conveyor,
5 slide containers,
Has the etc.?
pull system/optimization been
considered for this process?
6 Have provisions been made to identify and
inspect reworked products before being
7 used?
Have potential quality problems due to
handling and outside processing been
identified and corrected?
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 1
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

Responsible Date
1 Was the Process FMEA prepared using the
Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors
2 guidelines?
Have all operations affecting fit, function,
durability, governmental regulations and
safety been identified and listed
3 sequentially?
Were similar part FMEAs considered?
4 Have historical campaign and warranty
data been reviewed?
planned or taken for high risk priority
6 numbers?
Have appropriate corrective actions been
planned or taken for high severity
7 numbers?
Were risk priority numbers revised when
corrective action was completed?
8 Were high severity numbers revised when
a design change was completed?
9 Do the effects consider the customer?
10 Was warranty information used as an aid
in developing the process FMEA?
11 Were customer plant problems used as an
aid in developing the process FMEA?
12 Have the causes been described in terms
of something that can be fixed or
13 controlled?
Where detection is the major factor, have
provisions been made to control the cause
prior to the next operation?
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 1
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST

Responsible Date
1 Was the control plan methodology
referenced in section 6 used in preparing
the control
2 Have plan?customers concerns been
all known
identified to facilitate the selection of
special product/process characteristics?
3 Are all special product/process
characteristics included in the control plan?
4 Were SFMEA, DFMEA, and PFMEA used to
prepare the control plan?
5 Are material specifications requiring
inspection identified?
6 Does the control plan address incoming
(material/components) through
processing/assembly including packaging?
7 Are engineering performance testing
requirements identified?
8 Are gages and test equipment available as
required by the control plan?
9 If required, has the customer approved the
control plan?
10 Are gage methods compatible between
supplier and customer?
Revision Date:
Pg. 1 of 1
Prepared By:
Revised
08/11/04
SUPPLIER PROGRAM REVIEW MEETING SUMMARY PAGE
SUPPLIER: LOCATION:
DATE: TIME: MEETING No.:
REVIEW MEETING SCOPE:
PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION MODEL DELPHI DELPHI START PLATFORM HIGH VOLUME
YEAR START OF OF SCENARIO
PILOT PRODUCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
PART SUMMARIES:
RISK SUPPLIER PPAP DUE PPAP SUPPLIE DELPHI SUPPLIER SUPPLIER

LEVEL TOOLING DATE PROMISE R RUN @ RUN @ START OF START OF
COMPLETE DATE RATE RATE PILOT PROD.
1
2
3
4
5
6
DELPHI ATTENDEES SUPPLIER ATTENDEES

TITLE NAME
AQE/SQE
BUYER
PC&L
PROD. ENG.
PLANT QA
MGF. ENG.
PKG. ENG.
OTHER
OTHER
FOLLOW-UP MEETING DATE FOR NEXT REVIEW:
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
cc: Supplier, Buyer, Manager Supplier Quality/File, Readiness Coordinator
23 08/11/04
Program Review Checklist - Review #1
The purpose of this meeting is to develop a common understanding between our companies concerning the
total requirements of the part/material.
Program Kickoff
1. Does the supplier understand the immediate application and intended end use of the part/material?
Yes No Specify
.
2. Does the supplier have the latest print and specifications? Yes No
Specify plans to obtain: .
Latest Change Number: .
3. Does the supplier have the Quality Expectations, AIAG Manuals, or other Delphi required quality
documentation?
Yes No If no, Explain the Quality Expectations and the Boise Cascade and AIAG
ordering procedures and specify dates to receive:
4. Design
(DR) Was a Design Failure Mode & Effect Analysis (DFMEA) initiated by the design responsible party?
Yes No Supplier not DR (Design Responsible)
If Yes, was Design FMEA Checklist A-1 completed? Yes No
If No, specify plans to complete: .
(DR) Has the DELPHI PDT reviewed the design responsible party's DFMEA?
Yes No Supplier not DR Target date to review:
(DR) Are DFMEA open items addressed on an action plan and communicated to the DELPHI PDT?
Yes No Supplier Not DR Target date to complete:
5. Are there any source restrictions specified by engineering? Yes No

Explain: .
6. Have appropriate Key Product Characteristics (KPCs), Key Control Characteristics (KCCs), and Critical
Quality Characteristics (CQCs) been identified by Engineering? Yes No
Explain:
.
7.
a. Does the supplier understand Key Product Characteristics (KPCs), Key Control Characteristics
(KCCs), and Critical Quality Characteristics (CQCs) dimensions with respect to DELPHI's mating parts,
function, and manufacturing processes? Yes No
Specify plans to gain understanding:
.
24 08/11/04
Program Kickoff (cont.)
b. Does the supplier understand the critical nature of dimensions that interface with the customer's
application of their mating parts? List any known interfaces with the customer's parts:
c. All customer interface features and/or dimensions must be monitored through the Process
Control Plan and should be reviewed for the application of Error Proofing techniques. Has DELPHI
Engineering reviewed these interface dimensions for the application of KCCs?
Yes No
d. Have the right KCCs and CQCs been identified to control KPCs in order to prevent future
quality problems (PR&R's)? Yes No
8. Requirements and Timing:

a. Are there any prototype requirements? Yes No
Prototype due date:

.
Quantity Needed:
.
Supplier Promised Delivery Date:
.
b. Explain any quality concerns found during the prototype experience with the part or manufacturing process:
.
Does the supplier understand the prototype requirements per Delphi prototype procedure.
Yes No Specify plans to gain understanding:
.
c. Has a prototype Process Control Plan to control KPCs, KCCs and other features been developed?
Yes No If no, define the critical features and the plan to develop a Prototype
Process Control Plan:
.
d. Are there pre-production requirements (other than PPAP Requirements).

Yes No
Reason Date Quantity Needed Supplier Promise Date
Note: Complete Control Plan Checklist A-8.
25 08/11/04
9. A tooling build/refurbishment status report and timing chart are required, fax to
on the day(s) of each month at fax number
- - . Person responsible for sending:
.
a. What process does the supplier have to assure that PPAP requirements are met (including timing) and
to track PPAP approval status of their component parts?
b. Does the supplier understand that a tool build should not be halted unless the buyer agrees to do so?
Yes
c. Does the supplier understand that tooling invoices will not be honored until full PPAP approval has
been documented? Yes
10. Are special supplier gages or holding fixtures required? Yes No

Supplier is to have gaging designed and built.
Note: Measurement Systems Analysis (i.e., R & R, Isoplot, etc.) studies are required per the PPAP
manual and as explained in the AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis Manual
11. Does the supplier understand their responsibility to control their suppliers (eg; platers, heat treaters,
coaters, etc), including part approval process and quality control? Yes
Explain how this requirement will be met:
.
12.
a. Does the supplier have on-line capability, on-site Internet capability and a valid login identification
to handle the Problem Reporting and Resolution (PR/R) Procedure? Yes No
Note: the supplier is considered "late" if the initial response to a PR/R is received after 24 hours and the
final response is received after 15 days. If No, explain:
.
b. Does the supplier understand schedule non-compliance or over-shipments will result in a PR/R
rejection? Yes
c. Does the supplier understand Delphi's expectation for a thorough and detailed response to all
PR/Rs? Yes No
What problem solving tool does the supplier use to determine root cause? (e.g., 5-phase, 8-D, etc.)
.
13. In line with Delphi's Problem Reporting and Resolution (PR/R) Procedure, all suppliers must provide
material disposition and containment within 24 hours of non-conformance notification.
Does the supplier understand this policy? Yes No Explain:
.
26 08/11/04
14. What is the supplier's quoted 5-day capacity?

a. What production quantities are estimated for the future years?
Model Year Required Volume
High Volume Scenario:
b. What is the planned Tooled Capacity at SOP? . Does it support the high
volume scenario? Yes No If No, specify action plans:
.
15. Part or Division Specific questions )optional per division)?

1.
2.
3.
27 08/11/04
Program Review Checklist- Review #2
Mid Program Review

(maybe done in conjunction with Design Review)
2. Is a Value Engineering, Error-Proofing, Design For Manufacturing & Assembly (DFMA), or other
workshops applicable? Yes No
Explain opportunity and possible dates:
.
3. Does the supplier understand the Key Characteristic Designation System including distinction
between Fit & Function and Safety Compliance KPCs?
.
4. Has New Equipment, Tooling, and Test Equipment Checklist A-3 been completed?
Yes No Specify plans to review:
.
5. Has a concept pack per the Delphi packaging specification DAS-GSPM been developed?
Yes No If Yes, specify: .
If No, specify plans for completion: .
Is the concept of returnable containers appropriate for this application?
Yes No (M.E.) and
(buyer) will assist the suppliers in defining the program.
Specify any special packaging concepts:
6. DELPHI requires a DAS-GSPM Supplier Packaging Information form to be completed. Record who
will complete the form and the completion date:
. Send to
at .
28 08/11/04
Mid Program Review (cont.)
7. Has the floor plan been completed, considering Floor Plan Checklist A-5?
Yes No Explain: .
8. Has the supplier completed Product/Process Quality Checklist A-4? Yes No

Specify plans to review: .
9. Written certification of raw materials used is required. Are raw material samples required as part of
the component PPAP submission? Yes No
10. Does the supplier understand that the only authorization for suppliers to implement Delphi engineering
changes (including marked prints) is the applicable design record change notice issued by the appropriate
Delphi Buyer? Yes No
11. No change, of any kind, shall be made in material content, processing methods, testing methods, or
location of manufacture without the prior written approval of Delphi Purchasing. Does the supplier
understand the Delphi Change Request Form and applicable procedure? Yes
12. Delphi Automotive requires the use of accredited laboratories for PPAP submission of data for
specified characteristics.
(A2LA can be contacted for a list of accredited labs at: 301-670-1337; FAX: 301-869-1495.)
Which characteristics will require accredited laboratory documentation? Specify:

.
Explain plan for the supplier to meet the above requirements:
Their lab is already accredited by: .
They will use an outside accredited lab: .
Other: .
*Note: Third party registration to QS-9000 or ISO Guideline 025 is acceptable in

lieu of GP-10 or A2LA accreditation.
Does the supplier understand that the Laboratory's "Scope of Accreditation" must be included with the
PPAP submission? Yes
13. Delphi Automotive requires 1.67 Ppk minimum (short-term) process capability and 1.33 Cpk
minimum (long-term) process performance on critical characteristics (i.e. CQCs, KPCs and
KCCs. (Refer to the AIAG SPC and PPAP manuals.) All characteristics must conform
100% to specifications for the life of the part/material.
Are there any print, material specifications or Process Control Plan changes needed to meet
these requirements? Yes No Explain:
.
14. Does the supplier understand the progressive nature of the 100% screening requirements of the
Level I and Level II Controlled Shipping procedures? Yes No
.
29 08/11/04
Mid Program Review (cont.)
15. Part or Division Specific questions (optional per division)?

1.
2.
3.
30 08/11/04
PPAP Preparation
2. Supplier submission of Material for Production Approval (PPAP):

samples per: cavity (total # cavities )
mold (total # molds )
other: (total # other )
are required by for PPAP Level 3.
3. Does the supplier understand that PPAP approval status is Engineering Change Level specific, cavity
specific, and process specific?
Yes
4. The default level for PPAP submissions is Level 3. The default for Raw Material PPAP submissions
is Level 4. Consult the AIAG PPAP manual for details. Additionally, DELPHI requires a copy of the
Hazardous Material and Restricted and Reportable Chemicals Form with the appropriate pre-approval
signatures to be attached to all PPAP submissions.
PPAP Submission Level (if other than default):
5. Does the supplier completely understand the requirements of the PPAP submission, resubmission
procedures in the event submission is not given full approval, and the shipping of PPAP submission
and parts/material? Yes
PPAP shipping location:
.
6. Does the supplier understand that it is their responsibility to resubmit any Interim approved parts prior
to the expiration date (preferably 2 weeks prior to allow our plants time to process)?
Yes No
7. Production Part Approval is always required prior to the first production shipment. Does the supplier
understand the situations where PPAP submissions are required due to future product or process
changes? (See the AIAG Manual)
Yes No
31 08/11/04
PPAP Preparation (cont.)
8.
a. Does the receiving plant need a trial run for approval? Yes No
Specify the program with assignments and dates. Designate persons for follow-up to assure
completion:
.
Due date:
Quantity Needed:
Instructions for trial run delivery:
b. The most common problems with any parts are: 1) missed operations, 2) mixed parts, 3) surface
imperfections, and 4) other visual non-conformances. Explain the procedures the supplier will use to
prevent these potential quality problems:
9. (DR)* Has the supplier completed Design Information Checklist A-2?

Yes No N/A Specify plans to complete:
.
* DR stands for "Design Responsible". This question applies to a Design Responsible supplier only.
10. The Hazardous Material and Declaration of Conformance to Delphi A 10949001 Form pre-approval
and submission is required for all parts. (Refer to the "Delphi Substance of Concern and Recycled
Content" procedure #10949001.)
Are any restricted and reportable chemicals present in the part?
Yes No
Document who will complete the form for pre-approval, to whom it is to be sent,
and the due date: .
11. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL - Is a Material Safety Data Sheet required? Examples of materials
requiring MSDS include but are not limited to: oils, lubricants, cleaners, adhesives, aerosol sprays, etc.
Yes No
Does the supplier understand this requirement? Yes No
Document below who will complete the form, to whom it is to be sent, and the due date.
12. Is the Process Flow Diagram acceptable per standard guidelines? Yes No
If Yes, was Process Flow Chart Checklist A-6 completed? Yes If No, specify plans to
revise: .
Approval will be given prior to or in conjunction with Full PPAP Approval.
13. a. Is the PFMEA acceptable per standard guidelines? Yes No

If Yes, has Process FMEA Checklist A-7 been completed? Yes If No, specify plans to
revise: .
32 08/11/04
b. Has label error-proofing been considered during PFMEA creation? Yes No

If no, specify plans to complete: .
14. Are operator training plans and job instructions adequate? Yes No
When will they be available for review?
15. Is the Production Process Control Plan for normal production runs acceptable per standard
guidelines? Yes No
If no, define critical features and level of control required (complete Control Plan Checklist A-8):
.
16. Early Production Containment

a. Is the Early Production Containment plan adequate? Yes No
Specify plan for completion: .
Note: The early production containment plan is synonymous to the Pre-Launch
Control Plan as described by the APQP Manual.
b. Does the supplier understand when Early Production Containment Applies?

.
c. Does the supplier understand the Early Production Containment exit criteria?
.
d. What is the Early Production Containment quantity or duration?

.
17. Upon successful completion of Early Production Containment, all suppliers are required to
measure their quality performance and work for continuous improvement of all processes and parts.
Does the supplier fully understand the requirements of Continuous Improvement?
Yes No Explain action to comply:
.
18. Under what authority does the supplier need to ship production parts to the DELPHI facility?
Default is PPAP Full Approval .
If not under full PPAP approval, state Interim Level and reasons for Interim.
PPAP Interim Approval , Expiration Date: .
Other , Expiration Date: Specify action plans:
.
19. A "Run At Rate" study will be required to assure all systems are in place and adequate.
(Complete Floor Plan Checklist A-5 prior to run at rate.) Does the supplier understand that they must
be able to run at Tooled Capacity at the time of the Run At Rate? Yes No
33 08/11/04
20. Will the Run At Rate study be a customer monitored R @ R?

Yes No If Yes, specify date the supplier can accommodate such study:
If No, specify date the supplier will fax the Self-Monitored Run at Rate study form:
21. Have Run at Rate studies and capacity issues been reviewed with sub-suppliers?
Yes No It is strongly recommended that the supplier review these issues with
their suppliers prior to start of production.
22. Are there tooling, material, equipment, etc., problems that would jeopardize the estimated production
quantities? Yes No Specify: .

1.
2.
3.
34 08/11/04
Program Review Checklist- Review #2 or #3
PC&L Issues
1. a. Does the supplier understand their responsibility to have a delivery system with the capability
and design to be able to provide 100% on-time delivery? Yes No
.
b. Does the supplier understand their responsibility for all premium transportation costs that are
created by the supplier's inability to deliver? Note: this includes premium transportation costs between the
supplier and the DELPHI plant and between the DELPHI plant and the affected assembly plants,
if necessary. Yes No
Specify plan to gain understanding:
.
Note: All premium transportation shipments must be arranged and approved by the appropriate expeditor
2. Does the supplier understand that DELPHI is not responsible for any materials over and beyond that
covered by our commitment document? Yes No
Specify plan to gain understanding:
.
3. Does the supplier understand that shipments to DELPHI are to be carried by the mode of
transportation and carrier selected by DELPHI? Yes No
Normal mode: Carrier: .
4. To which plant(s) will production parts/material be sent? .
35 08/11/04
SUPPLIER PROGRAM REVIEW MEETING
SUPPLIER: THIS IS THE ELECTRONIC VERSION LOCATION:
DATE: TIME: MEETING No.:
REVIEW MEETING SCOPE:
PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION MODEL DELPHI DELPHI START PLATFORM HIGH VOLUME
YEAR START OF SCENARIO
OF PILOT PRODUCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
PART SUMMARIES:
RISK SUPPLIER PPAP PPAP SUPPLIER DELPHI SUPPLIER SUPPLIER

LEVEL TOOLING DUE PROMISE RUN @ RUN @ START OF START OF
COMPLETE DATE DATE RATE RATE PILOT PROD.
1
2
3
4
5
6
DELPHI ATTENDEES SUPPLIER ATTENDEES

TITLE NAME
AQE/SQE
BUYER
PC&L
PROD. ENG.
PLANT QA
MGF. ENG.
PKG. ENG.
OTHER
OTHER
FOLLOW-UP MEETING DATE FOR NEXT REVIEW:
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
cc: Supplier, Buyer, Manager Supplier Quality/File, Readiness Coordinator
36 08/11/04
The purpose of this meeting is to develop a common understanding between our companies concerning the total
requirements of the part/material.
Program Kickoff
1. Does the supplier understand the immediate application and intended end use of the part/material?
Yes No Specify
Specify plans to obtain: Latest Change Number:
3. Does the supplier have the Quality Expectations, AIAG Manuals, or other Delphi required quality documentation?
Yes No If no, Explain the Quality Expectations and the Boise Cascade and AIAG ordering
procedures and specify dates to receive:
4. Design
(DR) Was a Design Failure Mode & Effect Analysis (DFMEA) initiated by the design responsible party?
Yes No Supplier not DR (Design Responsible)
If Yes, was Design FMEA Checklist A-1 completed? Yes No If No, specify plans to
complete: .
(DR) Has the DELPHI PDT reviewed the design responsible party's DFMEA? Yes No
Supplier not DR Target date to review:
(DR) Are DFMEA open items addressed on an action plan and communicated to the DELPHI PDT?
Yes No Supplier Not DR Target date to complete: Yes No
5. Are there any source restrictions specified by engineering? Yes No

Explain:
6. Have appropriate Key Product Characteristics (KPCs), Key Control Characteristics (KCCs), and Critical
Quality Characteristics (CQCs) been identified by Engineering? Yes No
Explain:
7. a. Does the supplier understand Key Product Characteristics (KPCs), Key Control Characteristics
(KCCs), and Critical Quality Characteristics (CQCs) dimensions with respect to DELPHI's mating parts,
function, and manufacturing processes? Yes No Specify plans to gain understanding:
b. Does the supplier understand the critical nature of dimensions that interface with the customer's
application of their mating parts? List any known interfaces with the customer's parts:
c. All customer interface features and/or dimensions must be monitored through the Process
Control Plan and should be reviewed for the application of Error Proofing techniques. Has DELPHI
Engineering reviewed these interface dimensions for the application of KCCs? Yes No
d. Have the right KCCs and CQCs been identified to control KPCs in order to prevent future
quality problems (PR&R's)? Yes No
8. Requirements and Timing

a. Are there any prototype requirements? Yes No
Prototype due date:
Quantity Needed:
b. Explain any quality concerns found during the prototype experience with the part or manufacturing
process:
Does the supplier understand the prototype requirements per Delphi prototype procedure.
c. Has a prototype Process Control Plan to control KPCs, KCCs and other features been developed?
Yes No
37 08/11/04
If no, define the critical features and the plan to develop a Prototype Process Control Plan:
38 08/11/04
d. Are there pre-production requirements (other than PPAP Requirements). Yes No
Reason Date Quantity Needed Supplier Promise Date
Note: Complete Control Plan Checklist A-8.
9. A tooling build/refurbishment status report and timing chart are required, fax to
on the day(s) of each month at fax number
Person responsible for sending:
a. What process does the supplier have to assure that PPAP requirements are met (including timing)
and to track PPAP approval status of their component parts?
b. Does the supplier understand that a tool build should not be halted unless the buyer agrees to do so?
Yes
c. Does the supplier understand that tooling invoices will not be honored until full PPAP approval has
been documented? Yes
10. Are special supplier gages or holding fixtures required? Yes No

Supplier is to have gaging designed and built.
Note: Measurement Systems Analysis (i.e., R & R, Isoplot, etc.) studies are required per the PPAP
manual and as explained in the AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis Manual
11. Does the supplier understand their responsibility to control their suppliers (eg; platers, heat treaters,
coaters, etc), including part approval process and quality control? Yes
Explain how this requirement will be met:
12. a. Does the supplier have on-line capability, on-site Internet capability and a valid login identification
to handle the Problem Reporting and Resolution (PR/R) Procedure? Yes No
Note: the supplier is considered "late" if the initial response to a PR/R is received after 24 hours and
the final response is received after 15 days. If No, explain:
b. Does the supplier understand schedule non-compliance or over-shipments will result in a PR/R
rejection? Yes
c. Does the supplier understand Delphi's expectation for a thorough and detailed response to all
PR/Rs? Yes No
What problem solving tool does the supplier use to determine root cause? (e.g., 5-phase, 8-D, etc.)
13. In line with Delphi's Problem Reporting and Resolution (PR/R) Procedure, all suppliers must provide
material disposition and containment within 24 hours of non-conformance notification. Does the supplier
understand this policy? Yes No Explain:
14. What is the supplier's quoted 5-day capacity?

a. What production quantities are estimated for the future years?
Model Year Required Volume
High Volume Scenario:
b. What is the planned Tooled Capacity at SOP? Does it support the high volume
scenario? Yes No If No, specify action plans:
15. Part or Division Specific questions )optional per division)?

1.
39 08/11/04
2.
3.
40 08/11/04
Program Review Checklist- Review #2
Mid Program Review (maybe done in conjunction with Design Review)
1. Does the supplier have the latest print and specifications? Yes No Specify plans to obtain:
Latest Change Number:
2. Is a Value Engineering, Error-Proofing, Design For Manufacturing & Assembly (DFMA), or other
workshops applicable? Yes No Explain opportunity and possible dates:
3. Does the supplier understand the Key Characteristic Designation System including distinction between
Fit & Function and Safety Compliance KPCs? Yes No Specify plans to gain understanding:
4. Has New Equipment, Tooling, and Test Equipment Checklist A-3 been completed?
Yes No Specify plans to review:
5. Has a concept pack per the Delphi packaging specification DAS-GSPM been developed?
Yes No If Yes, specify:
If No, specify plans for completion:
Is the concept of returnable containers appropriate for this application? Yes No
(M.E.) and (buyer) will assist the suppliers in defining the
program. Specify any special packaging concepts:
6. DELPHI requires a DAS-GSPM Supplier Packaging Information form to be completed. Record who
will complete the form and the completion date:
Send to at
7. Has the floor plan been completed, considering Floor Plan Checklist A-5? Yes No
Explain:
8. Has the supplier completed Product/Process Quality Checklist A-4? Yes No Specify plans
to review:
9. Written certification of raw materials used is required. Are raw material samples required as part of
the component PPAP submission? Yes No
10. Does the supplier understand that the only authorization for suppliers to implement Delphi engineering
changes (including marked prints) is the applicable design record change notice issued by the appropriate
Delphi Buy Yes No
11. No change, of any kind, shall be made in material content, processing methods, testing methods, or
location of manufacture without the prior written approval of Delphi Purchasing. Does the supplier
understand the Delphi Change Request Form and applicable procedure? Yes
12. Delphi Automotive requires the use of accredited laboratories for PPAP submission of data for specified
characteristics. (A2LA can be contacted for a list of accredited labs at: 301-670-1337; FAX: 301-869-1495.)
Which characteristics will require accredited laboratory documentation? Specify:
Explain plan for the supplier to meet the above requirements:

Their lab is already accredited by:
They will use an outside accredited lab:
Other:
*Note: Third party registration to QS-9000 or ISO Guideline 025 is acceptable in lieu of GP-10 or
A2LA accreditation.
41 08/11/04
Does the supplier understand that the Laboratory's "Scope of Accreditation" must be included with the
PPAP submission? Yes
42 08/11/04
13. Delphi Automotive requires 1.67 Ppk minimum (short-term) process capability and 1.33 Cpk minimum
(long-term) process performance on critical characteristics (i.e. CQCs, KPCs and KCCs. (Refer
to the AIAG SPC and PPAP manuals.) All characteristics must conform 100% to specifications
for the life of the part/material.
Are there any print, material specifications or Process Control Plan changes needed to meet
these requirements? Yes No Explain:
14. Does the supplier understand the progressive nature of the 100% screening requirements of the
Level I and Level II Controlled Shipping procedures? Yes No
.

1.
2.
3.
43 08/11/04
PPAP Preparation
1. Does the supplier have the latest print and specifications? Yes No Specify plans to
obtain: Latest Change Number:
2. Supplier submission of Material for Production Approval (PPAP):

samples per: cavity (total # cavities )
mold (total # molds )
other: (total # other )
are required by for PPAP Level 3.
3. Does the supplier understand that PPAP approval status is Engineering Change Level specific, cavity
specific, and process specific? Yes
4. The default level for PPAP submissions is Level 3. The default for Raw Material PPAP submissions
is Level 4. Consult the AIAG PPAP manual for details. Additionally, DELPHI requires a copy of the
Hazardous Material and Restricted and Reportable Chemicals Form with the appropriate pre-approval
signatures to be attached to all PPAP submissions.
PPAP Submission Level (if other than default):
5. Does the supplier completely understand the requirements of the PPAP submission, resubmission
procedures in the event submission is not given full approval, and the shipping of PPAP submission
and parts/material? Yes PPAP shipping location:
6. Does the supplier understand that it is their responsibility to resubmit any Interim approved parts prior
to the expiration date (preferably 2 weeks prior to allow our plants time to process)?
Yes No
7. Production Part Approval is always required prior to the first production shipment. Does the supplier
understand the situations where PPAP submissions are required due to future product or process
changes? (See the AIAG Manual) Yes No
8. a. Does the receiving plant need a trial run for approval? Yes No Specify the program
with assignments and dates. Designate persons for follow-up to assure completion:
Due date:
Quantity Needed:
Instructions for trial run delivery:
b. The most common problems with any parts are: 1) missed operations, 2) mixed parts, 3) surface
imperfections, and 4) other visual non-conformances. Explain the procedures the supplier will use to
prevent these potential quality problems:
9. (DR)* Has the supplier completed Design Information Checklist A-2? Yes No N/A
Specify plans to complete:
* DR stands for "Design Responsible". This question applies to a Design Responsible supplier only.
10. The Hazardous Material and Declaration of Conformance to Delphi A 10949001 Form pre-approval and
submission is required for all parts. (Refer to the "Delphi Substance of Concern and Recycled Content"
procedure #10949001.) Are any restricted and reportable chemicals present in the part?
Yes No Document who will complete the form for pre-approval, to whom it is to be sent,
44 08/11/04
and the due date:
45 08/11/04
11. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL - Is a Material Safety Data Sheet required? Examples of materials requiring
MSDS include but are not limited to: oils, lubricants, cleaners, adhesives, aerosol sprays, etc.
Yes No Does the supplier understand this requirement? Yes No
Document below who will complete the form, to whom it is to be sent, and the due date.
12. Is the Process Flow Diagram acceptable per standard guidelines? Yes No If Yes, was
Process Flow Chart Checklist A-6 completed? Yes If No, specify plans to revise:
13. a. Is the PFMEA acceptable per standard guidelines? Yes No If Yes, has Process FMEA
Checklist A-7 been completed? Yes If No, specify plans to revise:
b. Has label error-proofing been considered during PFMEA creation? Yes No If no,
specify plans to complete:
14. Are operator training plans and job instructions adequate? Yes No
When will they be available for review?
15. Is the Production Process Control Plan for normal production runs acceptable per standard guidelines?
Yes No If no, define critical features and level of control required (complete Control Plan
Checklist A-8):
16. Early Production Containment

a. Is the Early Production Containment plan adequate? Yes No Specify Plan for
completion:
Note: The early production containment plan is synonymous to the Pre-Launch Control Plan as
described by the APQP Manual.
b. Does the supplier understand when Early Production Containment Applies?

c. Does the supplier understand the Early Production Containment exit criteria?
d. What is the Early Production Containment quantity or duration?
17. Upon successful completion of Early Production Containment, all suppliers are required to measure their
quality performance and work for continuous improvement of all processes and parts. Does the supplier
fully understand the requirements of Continuous Improvement? Yes No Explain action to
comply:
18. Under what authority does the supplier need to ship production parts to the DELPHI facility? Default is
PPAP Full Approval
If not under full PPAP approval, state Interim Level and reasons for Interim.
PPAP Interim Approval Expiration Date:
Other Expiration Date: Specify action plans:
19. A "Run At Rate" study will be required to assure all systems are in place and adequate. (Complete
Floor Plan Checklist A-5 prior to run at rate.) Does the supplier understand that they must be able to run
at Tooled Capacity at the time of the Run At Rate? Yes No
20. Will the Run At Rate study be a customer monitored R @ R? Yes No If Yes, specify date
the supplier can accommodate such study: If No, specify date the supplier will fax the
Self-Monitored Run at Rate study form:
46 08/11/04
21. Have Run at Rate studies and capacity issues been reviewed with sub-suppliers? Yes No
It is strongly recommended that the supplier review these issues with their suppliers prior to start of production.
47 08/11/04
22. Are there tooling, material, equipment, etc., problems that would jeopardize the estimated production
quantities? Yes No Specify:

1.
2.
3.
48 08/11/04
Program Review Checklist- Review #2 or #3
PC&L Issues
1. a. Does the supplier understand their responsibility to have a delivery system with the capability and
design to be able to provide 100% on-time delivery? Yes No Specify plans to gain
understanding:
b. Does the supplier understand their responsibility for all premium transportation costs that are
created by the supplier's inability to deliver? Note: this includes premium transportation costs
between the supplier and the DELPHI plant and between the DELPHI plant and the affected assembly
plants, if necessary. Yes No Specify plan to gain understanding:
Note: All premium transportation shipments must be arranged and approved by the appropriate
expeditor
2. Does the supplier understand that DELPHI is not responsible for any materials over and beyond that
covered by our commitment document? Yes No Specify plan to gain understanding:
3. Does the supplier understand that shipments to DELPHI are to be carried by the mode of transportation
and carrier selected by DELPHI? Yes No Normal mode:
Carrier:
4. To which plant(s) will production parts/material be sent?
49 08/11/04
Run at Rate Plan
Supplier/Mfg Location: Supplier Run @ Rate Contact: Supplier R @ R Contact Phone #:
Part Description: Part Number(s): DELPHI Program(s):
Customer or Supplier Monitored: PPAP Promise Date: Run @ Rate Promise Date:
Item Item Item Plan Forecast

No. Responsibility Completion
Date
1. Availability of raw material by the Run
@ Rate promise date.
2. Capacity Allocation for shared tooling.

Applicable to all parts of the
production process. (including paint
line and additional capital
equipment)
QTCTOTAL=QTCDELPHI+QTCother
QTCDELPHI=QTCP/N1+QTCP/N2...
3. Inventory/storage of Run @ Rate parts

(racks, containers, packaging, storage
location, etc.)?
4. Conversion/acceleration plan if capital
equipment is used on current /service
parts.
5. Subcontractor/SubTier components
-Verification of their capacity
-Availability of parts for run
6. Preliminary Run @ Rate – Dates &
Plan
7. Staffing & Training
8. Production Control/Logistics
Readiness
Progress Key:
No plan identified Open issues with plan Plan on schedule Plan Complete
Progress
Revised
Aug-04
Run @ Rate Summary Sheet
Delphi Monitored
Type of Run @ Rate:
Delphi Part Number:
Supplier Monitored
Supplier Name: Rev. Level:

Supplier Duns Code: Delphi Part Name:
Supplier Contact Name: Delphi Program:
Manufacturing Address:
Supplier Data Delphi Data
QUOTED TOOL CAPACITY MAX SCHEDULE VOLUME

A.
(QTC) (quantity / yr.): (MSV) [quantity /yr.]:
B. Production Days [days / yr]: Workdays of Delphi plant [days / yr]:
Quoted Daily Capacity

C.
[quantity / day]:
0 Daily volume [quantity / day]: 0
Planned Machine Loading: Supplier Tooling Information: (quantity, description, etc.)

Gross Hrs./Day( total shift
D.
time) [hrs / day]
Planned Machine Loading
E.
For This Part [%]:
Gross Hrs./Day allocated for
F.
this part [hrs / day] 0.0
Comments:
Supplier Planning Data. Used Data from the actual Run@Rate.
for preliminary runs and Used to determine the status of the
adjustments. Run@Rate.
Planned Actual
Run @ Rate Results:
(by the supplier)
Date of Run@Rate:
G. Duration of Run@Rate [hrs]:
H. Downtime during Run@Rate period minutes hours minutes hours
1. breaks 0.00 0.00
2. lunch 0.00 0.00
The data calculated in these fields
3. maintenance 0.00 0.00 are not used in the Actual TC
tabulations but are very important
4. changeover / setup time 0.00 0.00 for process improvement and
corrective action activities. The
5. unplanned 0.00 0.00 downtime is already comprehended
in the Part Quantities produced (J)
6. Total [1 through 5] 0 0.00 0 0.00 results.
7. % Downtime {=(H6 /G )} [%] 0 0

Net Productive Time {=(F*(1-H7)
I. [hrs] 0 0
Part Quantities Produced during the

J.
Run@Rate
1. Total Parts [# of ]
2. Rejected [# of ]
3. Net Good {=J1-J2} [# of ] 0 0

4. Net Parts / Hr {=J3 / G} [# / hr ] 0 0
R@R Planning Data. Not for

Production line / Tool Capacity / Schedule determining final status.
ACTUAL TC QTC MSV
K. Net Daily Capacity {F*J4} [quantity / day] 0 0 0

L. Net Yearly Capacity [quantity / yr] 0 0 0
RUN @ RATE SUMMARY Result Capacity Quality Final Status

ACTUAL TC > QTC and ACTUAL TC > MSV PASS
ACTUAL TC < QTC but ACTUAL TC > MSV OPEN
ACTUAL TC > QTC but ACTUAL TC < MSV* OPEN/FAIL MSV
ACTUAL TC < QTC and ACTUAL TC < MSV FAIL X
*Consult with the Buyer
Rerun Date (if required):
Responsibility Name Mailing Address Contact Number
Supplier Representative
Delphi SQE
Delphi Buyer
Run at Rate Summary Worksheet Definitions
1. Green Cells These cells contain formulas used to calculate the user input cells. They
are not for user input.
2. White These cells are intended for user input as the respective column and
row heading indicates.
Cell # Cell Description Definition

Type of Run @ Rate Before the Run @ Rate, the SQE will determine if the Run @ Rate is to be
Delphi Monitored or Supplier Monitored. The responsible AQE/SQE makes
the choice and forwards this form to the supplier. Only fill out the areas left in
White.
Supplier Name Name of the supplier of the parts.
Supplier Duns Code Record the DUNS code of the manufacturing location responsible for the
parts.
Supplier Contact Name The name of the lead supplier representative who will serve as the
communication contact for the representative Engineer.
Manufacturing Address Address of the manufacturing location responsible for the parts.
Delphi Part Number Customer part number. Engineering released part number for which the Part
Certification is being submitted.
Rev. Level The revision level (or engineering change level) of the design record (or print
drawing) that is used during the R@R study. This should also be the same rev
level that is documented on the warrant from the PPAP package.
Delphi Part Name Use the finished part name (e.g. Resistor Array Module) appearing on the
product drawing typically found in the title block.
Delphi Program The program that the specific part number is being used for (e.g.. GMT-360,
Saturn LS).
Max Schedule Volume (MSV) Maximum scheduled volume based on PC & L’s or other functional area’s
documented customer requirements. This quantity should be the yearly
amount.
Work days of Delphi plant (s) The number of planned work days for the year of the Delphi user location(s).
Daily volume [quantity / day] The daily volume calculated from the Delphi MSV/ workdays.
A. Quoted Tool Capacity This should be net good parts, factoring in all downtime, scrap, & planned
machine loading. The capacity quoted on the contract.
B. Production Days The actual number of days per year that production is scheduled to run.
C. Quoted Daily Capacity QTC/Production days.
Revised
08/11/04
D. Gross Hours/Day (total shift The total shift time in hours per day planned for production.
time)
E. Planned Machine Loading The planned run schedules identifying Delphi's availability on the machine or
tool. Cell is formatted in %. Enter actual value. (e.g. 100 for 100%)
F. Gross Hours/Day Allocated to Hours allocated for this part. Calculated Gross hrs/day * Planned Machine
the Part Loading.
Supplier Tooling Information Supplier tooling information such as quantity of tools, tooling description, and
other. Not used in calculations.
Date of Run@Rate The actual date the Run@Rate is performed.
G. Duration of Run@Rate The actual number of hours the Run@Rate was conducted.
Comments This text box is available for the individual completing the Summary Sheet to
provide information pertinent to the Run @ Rate that does not have its own
cell in the Summary Sheet.
H. Downtime during Run@Rate This section represents the actual downtime minutes observed during the
period Run@Rate. Enter the downtime in minutes in the five categories and the
related time in hours for each category is automatically calculated. The
downtime should be based on the total shifts included in the duration of the
Run@Rate.
Total [1 through 5] The total amount of downtime in hours observed during the Run@Rate.
Calculated from the sum of the downtime categories in hours.
% Downtime % Downtime = Total Downtime (hours) / Duration *100. This field is

calculated and formatted in %.
I. Net Productive Time Net Productive Time= Gross hours/day allocated * Uptime. Uptime = 1-%
downtime. This is a calculated field. This calculation is used for information
and continuous improvement. It is not used in the final results calculation.
J. Total Parts Total quantities produced during the R@R.
Rejected Total # rejected during the Run@Rate. Rejects include both scrapped and
reworked parts.
Net Good Total # produced - total # rejected during the Run @ Rate. Calculated field.
Net Parts / Hr {=J3 / G} Net good parts / Duration of the Run@Rate (# / hour). Calculated field.
K. Net Daily Capacity {F*J4} Planning: This number relates to the Supplier's planned production during
preliminary R@Rs. Should normally meet or exceed QTC rate. Allows the
supplier to perform preliminary studies prior to the actual Run@Rate.
Actual TC: TC from the actual Run@Rate. Data that will be used to
determine the Run @ Rate status.
QTC: Capacity quoted by supplier as per a documented contract. Carry-over
from the QTC cell above.
Revised
08/11/04
MSV: The Maximum Scheduled Volume required by Delphi. Carry-over from
the MSV cell above.
L. Net Yearly Capacity The Planning Net Daily Capacity value multiplied by the supplier's yearly
production days.
The Actual TC Net Daily Capacity value multiplied by the supplier's yearly
production days.
QTC: Capacity quoted by supplier as per a documented contract. Carry-over
from the QTC cell above.
MSV: The Maximum Scheduled Volume required by Delphi. Carry-over from
the MSV cell above.
Run @ Rate Summary The Run @ Rate status shall be based on both the Capacity and Quality
results. The status of the Run@Rate for capacity is based on the Actual TC
results in comparison with the QTC & MSV. The Actual TC must meet both the
daily and yearly requirements. The status of the Run@Rate for quality is
based on the results of the attached quality review worksheet. The
appropriate improvement plans are required for all open issues or
nonconformities. The Final Status will be derived from the Capacity and
Quality Results. The Final Status shall be the lower of the Capacity and
Quality statuses. (If either Capacity or Quality = Fail, Final = Fail. If Capacity
or Quality = Open, Final = Open. If no Fail or Open exists, the Final Status =
Pass) The Open/Fail MSV category exists for situations where the supplier
meets QTC requirements but does not meet MSV. In case of the Open/Fail
MSV result, the SQE should consult with the buyer to develop appropriate
action plans.
Rerun Date The date agreed upon by Delphi and the supplier if a rerun is required.
Responsibility This section authenticates the Run @ Rate Summary Sheet as an officially
documented summary of the Run @ Rate. The section should include the
Name, Signature, Mailing Address, and Contact Number of the Supplier Run
@ Rate Coordinator and Delphi SQE. The Delphi Buyer name, address, and
number should be documented.
R@R C1- Supplementary Form A form that can be used for documenting steps in an assembly process with
multiple operations within the production process.
Revised
08/11/04
DELPHI SYSTEMS
Run @ Rate C1 - Supplementary Form
Supplier Name: Part Numbers(s):
CAPACITY PIECES PER HOUR UPTIME FTQ Gross DAILY CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Observation
Hours Planned Planned Actual Worst Excess Period
QTC MSV Mach. Cycle / Hr. Pieces # Total Hrs. Machine Capacity1 Equivalent2 Case or Net Good
Operation (per day) (per day) Planned Actual / Cycle Planned Actual Planned Actual Sh Day Useage (EGHJMN) (FGIKMN) Equivalent3 Shortage4 Time Pieces
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
A B C D E F G H5 I5 J5 K5 L M N5 O P Q R S T
NOTES: Productive Hours: Hrs. per Shift

1.) Planned Capacity - Calculated by Operation; however, may be limited by sequential process operation (i.e.: preceeding process) Start-up/Changeover
Lunch
2.) Actual Equivalent - Based on supplier's actual / observed performance (e.g.: Cycle, Uptime, FTQ, etc.). Maintenance
0.0 Net Hrs. per Shift
3.) Worst Case Equivalent - Calculated as the lesser value of either planned or actual for all applicable elements (e.g.: Machine Cycle, Uptime, and FTQ) Shifts per day
and parts entering each sequential step. 0.0 Hours/day
Work Days / Year
4.) Excess or Shortage - Based on Actual Daily Equivalent; compared to the greater of either Quoted or Required Capacity (C/D).
5.) Percentages: All percentages (H,I,J,K,N) are input as they should appear (I.e.: 94.7% should be input as 94.7); NOT as a decimal (e.g.: 0.947).
Document Control Rev.

6/21/01
Supplier Performance Development Process
Run @ Rate Review Worksheet
Supplier Name: Part Number(s):
7.0. RUN @ RATE REVIEW CONTENT
During the Run @ Rate, the following shall be reviewed:

Documentation
Manufacturing process and results
Part quality requirements and results
Sub-supplier requirements
Run @ Rate results
Packaging, labeling and handling processes (dock to dock)
7.1. Documentation
At the time of the Run @ Rate, the following support documentation should be available for
review:
Available YES/NO
7.1.1. Appropriate PPAP package information
7.1.2. Quoted tool capacity and planned machine loading
information
7.1.3. Operator/inspection instructions
7.1.4. Prototype/pilot concerns
7.1.5. Sub-contractor control/capacity planning process
7.1.6. Sub-contractor material schedules and transportation plan
for production
7.1.7. Packaging/labeling plan for production
7.1.8. Acceleration plan
7.2. Manufacturing Process Requirements

YES/NO
7.2.1. Is the product being manufactured at the production site using the
production tooling, gaging, process, materials, operators,
environment, and process settings?
Comments:
7.2.2. Does the actual process flow agree with the process flow diagram,
as documented in PPAP? (Review the facility plan and layout. Walk
the process with the flow diagram.)
Comments:
7.2.3. Are operator instructions/visual aids available and adhered to at

each workstation?
Page 57 08/11/04
Comments:
Page 58 08/11/04
7.2.4. Is all in-process documentation, such as process control charts, in
place at the time of the Run @ Rate? Is the documentation utilized
to drive a defined reaction plan and corrective action process?
Comments:
7.2.5. When required, are production boundary samples available at

required workstations? Does Delphi approve the boundary
samples?
Comments:
7.2.6. Are maintenance plans in place? Are repair and maintenance parts
available? Is there planned downtime for preventative
maintenance?
Comments:
7.3. Manufacturing Capacity Results

The following shall be verified during the Run @ Rate. (With Planned Machine Loading)
YES/NO
7.3.1. Can net output from each operation support quoted tool capacity?
Comments:
Operation Quoted Capacity Rate
Page 59 08/11/04
YES/NO
7.3.2. During the Run @ Rate, did the tooling meet the quoted up time
requirements (net vs. gross quoted output)? Make note of any
unexpected downtime and corrective action plans required.
Comments:
7.3.3. Can all line changeovers, if any, be performed within the quoted tool
capacity requirements?
Comments:
7.3.4. Does the net throughput of good pieces (scrap taken out, any
allowable rework) meet daily quoted tool capacity?
Comments:
7.3.5. Is the acceleration plan sufficient to meet MSV requirements?
Comments:
7.4. Part Quality Plan Verification

YES/NO
7.4.1. Are all production checking fixtures complete, with acceptable
measurement system studies (e.g., gage R and R) performed, and
operator instructions/visual aids available?
Comments:
7.4.2. Are all in process gaging and controls complete, functional and in
place?
Comments:
7.4.3. Do the process control plans (production and pre-launch) agree with
the actual process? Do production part checks and statistical
monitoring take place as outlined on the process control plan?
Comments:
Page 60 08/11/04
7.4.4. Are potential failure modes, as identified in the PFMEA, addressed
through error proofing or the control plan?
Page 61 08/11/04
Comments:
7.4.5. Do the process control plan's reaction plan and the supplier's
process for containment and corrective action ensure effective
containment and correction?
Comments:
7.5. Part Quality Results

YES/NO
Do the parts produced off production tooling during the Run @ Rate meet
Delphi's requirements for on-going quality?
Is there a plan in place to track, analyze, and improve First Time Quality?
If NO, then what is the date for implementation?
Comments:
7.6. Subcontractor Requirements

YES/NO
7.6.1. Were subcontractors' abilities to meet defined quality and capacity
requirements confirmed by the supplier prior to the Run @ Rate?
Was verification of the subcontractors' manufacturing processes
accomplished through a Run @ Rate or similar process conducted
by the supplier?
Comments:
7.6.2. Are controls in place to isolate incoming material until it has been
approved?
Comments:
7.7. Packaging, Labeling, and Handling

YES/NO
7.7.1. Do the in process and final shipment packaging preserve part
quality and provide for easy loading and unloading of parts?
Comments:
Page 62 08/11/04
7.7.2. Does the supplier's method for in process and final shipping
packaging and handling effectively eliminate the potential for
process errors or mixed stock?
Comments:
7.7.3. Is all material properly identified with appropriate label information?
Comments:
7.7.4. Does the supplier's labeling system ensure that no misidentification

will occur?
Comments:
7.7.5. Is bar code labeling a requirement (Delphi 1724 or equivalent)

unless specifically instructed otherwise by purchasing?
Comments:
Page 63 08/11/04
Additional COMMENTS:
Completed
By: Phone: Date:
Guidelines for Pass, Open, & Fail Quality Results

The following guidelines are suggested criteria for statusing the Quality section of the
Run@Rate. The Supplier Quality Engineer based on sound judgement and experience is
empowered to make the decision as to the final status of the Run@Rate.
Pass
- The manufacturing process agrees with the manufacturing & quality plan as
documented in PPAP.
- The quality system was documented and practiced.
- An effective & documented FTQ plan is in place.
- No open issues.
Open
- Minor nonconformity(s) exist but will not likely result in the shipment of nonconforming
material.
- One or more 'No' answers in the Review Worksheet.
- FTQ plan not documented.
- Open issues exist.
Fail
- Major nonconformities exist that may result in the shipment of nonconforming products.
- The manufacturing process does not agree with the manufacturing & quality plan as
documented in PPAP.
- The absence or total breakdown of a quality system.
Page 64 08/11/04
Page 65 08/11/04
SUPPLIER MONITORED - RUN @ RATE FOLLOW-UP FORM
Date: This is Page 1 of pages.
To: Fax:
Attention: Phone:
Part Number:
I have reviewed the Run @ Rate data provided and determined the result as checked below:
PASS: Based on your documentation, you have met all applicable requirements of Run at Rate for
this part and have documented an ability to produce quality parts at an acceptable rate.
OPEN: I have identified some minor non-conformances to the Run @ Rate requirements in your
documentation as follows:
Please submit an action plan within the next 2 business days documenting your corrective action
plans to resolve these non-conformances.
FAIL: I have identified serious deficiencies in the documentation you provided for the Run @ Rate
results as follows:
As described in the Delphi Run @ Rate procedure, you are required to develop a written corrective
action plan to resolve these non-conformances. Please submit within the next few business days
your plan to resolve these non-conformances. The Run @ Rate study will need to be repeated when
corrective actions have been implemented.
Note: Keep a complete copy of this Run @ Rate on file for future reference.
Sincerely,
08/11/04
DELPHI Supplier Quality FMEA SEVERITY RANKINGS
Note #1: Any Failure Mode affecting the Vehicle Assembly Plant MUST be ranked an “8” or higher.
Note #2: Any Failure Mode affecting a Delphi Plant MUST be ranked “5” or higher.
Rev. Date: 5/02
Select from the categories below, using the highest applicable ranking.
Ranking Effect End Customer Vehicle Assembly Plant Delphi Plant Supplier Plant
10 Hazardous- Potential failure mode affects Potential failure mode may Potential failure mode may Potential failure mode may
without warning safe vehicle operation and/or cause unsafe condition for cause unsafe condition for cause unsafe condition for
involves noncompliance with plant personnel without plant personnel without plant personnel without
government regulation without warning. warning. warning.
warning.
9 Hazardous-with Potential failure mode affects Potential failure mode may Potential failure mode may Potential failure mode may
warning safe vehicle operation and/or cause unsafe condition for cause unsafe condition for cause unsafe condition for
involves noncompliance with plant personnel with warning. plant personnel with warning. plant personnel with warning.
government regulation with
warning.
8 Very High Vehicle/item inoperable (loss Potential failure mode may Potential failure mode may
of primary function); failure cause a spill/major disruption, cause a spill/major disruption
mode may cause customer repair, assembly difficulty, at a Delphi Plant.
walk home, field return, or rework, or sorting at the
durability issue. Vehicle Assembly Plant
7 High Vehicle/item operable but at a Potential failure mode may
reduced level of performance. cause repair, assembly
Customer very dissatisfied. difficulty, rework, sorting at a
Failure mode may cause See Note #1 Delphi plant.
vehicle repairs at Dealer.
Includes Noise issues
(squeak/rattle).
6 Moderate Vehicle/item operable but Potential failure mode may
comfort/convenience item(s)) cause special handling of
inoperable/not performing to See Note #1 components at Delphi-S.
customer expectation (e.g..
Noise)
5 Low Vehicle/item operable but Potential failure mode may
comfort/convenience item(s) See Note #1 cause inconvenience to Delphi
operable at a reduced level of prior to assembly.
performance.
4 Very Low Fit and finish item does not See Note #2
conform. Defect noticed by See Note #1
most customers.
3 Minor Fit and finish item does not See Note #2
average customers.
2 Very Minor Fit and finish item does not See Note #2
discriminating customers.
1 None No effect. See Note #1 See Note #2
: 5/02
ode may
ndition for
thout
ode may
ndition for
th warning.
DELPHI Supplier Quality FMEA OCCURRENCE EVALUATION RANKINGS
Sample calculation to determine Ppk value from a likely failure rate of 5 per thousand pieces (see FMEA third Appendix I).
Probability Likely Failure Rates Ppk Ranking
Very High: Persistent Failures

100 per thousand pieces < 0.55 10
50 per thousand pieces > 0.55 9
High: Frequent Failures

Moderate: Occasional Failures 5 per thousand pieces > 0.94 6
2 per thousand pieces >1.00 5
1 per thousand pieces >1.10 4
Low: Relatively Few Failures

0.5 per thousand pieces >1.20 3
0.1 per thousand pieces > 1.30 2
Remote: Failure is unlikely

< 0.001 per thousand pieces * > 1.67 1
Note: Identical to Manual except for Ranking of 1. Manual allows for .01 per thousand (10 PPM) Rev. Date:
08/11/04
DELPHI Supplier Quality FMEA Detection Rankings
Ranking Effect PFMEA
10 Absolute Uncertainty Cannot detect or is not checked.
9 Very Remote Control is achieved with indirect or random checks only.
8 Remote Control is achieved with visual inspection only.
7 Very Low Control is achieved with double visual inspection only.
6 Low Control is achieved with charting methods, such as SPC

(Statistical Process Control) OR gauging performed on setup
and first-piece check. *
5 Moderate Control is based on variable or attribute gauging performed

100% of the parts after parts have left the station.
4 Moderately High Error detection in subsequent operation. *
3 High Error detection in-station, or error detection in subsequent

operations by multiple layers of acceptance: supply, select,
install, verify. Cannot accept discrepant part.
2 Very High Error detection in-station (automatic gauging with automatic

stop feature). Cannot pass discrepant part.
1 Almost Certain Discrepant parts cannot be made because item has been
error-proofed by process/product design.
* Note: Identical to Manual except for Rankings of 6 and 4. Words “OR gauging performed on setup and first piece check”
moved from a detection of 4 to a detection of 6 08/11/04
check”

Apqp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apqp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apqp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Click on the title below and you will be linked to the

Table of Contents appropriate worksheet. To get back to the Table of Contents,

TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT

Part Number: Part Name:

Is product adequately defined (application requirements, etc.) to enable feasibility evaluation?

Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.

The current designed product is feasible, but based on our analysis,

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date

Item Remarks Actions from Customer (mandatory if

Part Specific Quality requirements? * No Yes, see enclosed

Signature: Title Date

Issue Assigned Forecast

Supplier Contact: Description:

Program Event Start Finish Status Comments

As of: ____________________ Revised

Supplier Code Manufacturing Address

1st Shift Contact

2nd Shift Contact

3rd Shift Contact

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment/Action Required Person Due

DATE: TIME: MEETING No.:

REVIEW MEETING SCOPE:

RISK SUPPLIER PPAP DUE PPAP SUPPLIE DELPHI SUPPLIER SUPPLIER

DELPHI ATTENDEES SUPPLIER ATTENDEES

FOLLOW-UP MEETING DATE FOR NEXT REVIEW: