Nonconformity management

Organization name ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED

Audit start date 29.Oct.2021

Audit end date 30.Oct.2021

Audit type 1st Surveillance audit

CB identification no. 12091584

CB certificate no. IN036068- IATF

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 1/13
 Nonconformity management

NC no. NC identification no. Standard Standard clause Classification Due date max. 20 days Due date max. 60 days Nonconformity observed in process

1 MNT-01 IATF 16949:2016 9.2.2.3 minor 29.Dec.2021 Top Management & Management Process

2 MNT-02 IATF 16949:2016 9.1.1.1 minor 29.Dec.2021 Heat Treatment

3 MMA-01 IATF 16949:2016 8.4.2.4.1 minor 29.Dec.2021 Procurement Process including

outsourcing process

4 NHK - 01 IATF 16949:2016 9.2.2.4 minor 29.Dec.2021 Quality Assurance ( NPD & Laboratory)

5 NHK-02 IATF 16949:2016 7.1.5.1.1 minor 29.Dec.2021 Quality Assurance ( NPD & Laboratory)

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
2/13
 Nonconformity management

NC & actions
Nonconformity 1
To be completed by the CB auditor

NC header

NC identification no. MNT-01

Standard IATF 16949:2016

Classification minor

Due date max. 60 days 29.Dec.2021

Nonconformity observed in process Top Management & Management Process

Standard clause 9.2.2.3

Manufacturing process audit

Requirement The organization shall audit all manufacturing processes over each
three-year calendar period to determine their effectiveness and
efficiency using customer-specific required approaches for process
audits. Where not defined by the customer, the organization shall
determine the approach to be used.
Within each individual audit plan, each manufacturing process shall be
audited on all shifts where it occurs, including the appropriate
sampling of the shift handover.
The manufacturing process audit shall include an audit of the effective
implementation of the process risk analysis (such as PFMEA), control
plan, and associated documents.

Statement of nonconformity

The system of carrying the manufacturing process audit is not effective

Objective evidence

Manufacturing process audit carried out on Jun21 (Rolling process audited on 29Jun21 & Final Inspection audited on 24Jun21) as per the plan -
ASPL-Rec-020-07 seen however in this plan and audit, Heat treatment process not considered for audit

Justification for classification

However other manufacturing process captured for audit and in QMS audit, heat treatment process verified as per process mapping seen hence
graded as minor.

MuthuKumara Narasimhan T 30.Oct.2021 This document is valid without a signature

Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date

To be completed by the organization

Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:

Heat treatment Process Added in Yearly Audit plan - 10/11/2021- Nagarajan Balaguru

Evidence of implementation

Process Audit Cycle for Three year - ASPL-Rec-020-07 - Revision: 2- 10/11/2021

Evidence of implementation

Process Audit PLan.pdf

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 3/13
 Nonconformity management

Root cause analysis

Why1: Process Audit Not done for Heat treatment Process

Why2: Heat treatment process not updated in yearly Plan
Why3: It is Major Process Change happened in Organization.
Why4: New process.

Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? No

Please describe how the root cause does not impact other process? This major process changes added as New process

Root cause result

New process Criteria not added in procedure

Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person

1. Criteria added in Process audit plan (Which include Major Process changes)
2. Criteria updated in General Management Procedure

Systemic corrective actions files

Process Audit PLan.pdf

Evidence of implementation

1. Process Audit Plan - ASPL-Rec-020-07

2. Internal Audit Program- General Management Procedure: ASPL-GMP-020-11

Evidence of implementation files

Process Audit Plan.pdf, Internal Audit Program.pdf

Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions

1. Special internal Audit to be done for Internal Audit Program.

Verify effective implementation of corrective actions files

Special Internal Audit.pdf

Submission(s)

Murthy Balaram 20.Dec.2021

Organizations representative date

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 4/13
 Nonconformity management

Nonconformity 2
To be completed by the CB auditor

NC header

NC identification no. MNT-02

Standard IATF 16949:2016

Classification minor

Due date max. 60 days 29.Dec.2021

Nonconformity observed in process Heat Treatment

Standard clause 9.1.1.1

Monitoring and measurement of manufacturing processes

Requirement The organization shall perform process studies on all new

manufacturing (including assembly or sequencing) processes to verify
process capability and to provide additional input for process control,
including those for special characteristics.
The organization shall maintain manufacturing process capability or
performance results as specified by the customer’s part approval
process requirements. The organization shall verify that the process
flow diagram, PFMEA, and control plan are implemented, including
adherence to the following:
a) measurement techniques;
b) sampling plans;
c) acceptance criteria;
d) records of actual measurement values and/or test results for
variable data;
e) reaction plans and escalation process when acceptance criteria are
not met.
Significant process events, such as tool change or machine repair,
shall be recorded and retained as documented information.
The organization shall initiate a reaction plan indicated on the control
plan and evaluated for impact on compliance to specifications for
characteristics that are either not statistically capable or are unstable.
These reaction plans shall include containment of product and 100
percent inspection, as appropriate. A corrective action plan shall be
developed and implemented by the organization indicating specific
actions, timing, and assigned responsibilities to ensure that the
process becomes stable and statistically capable. The plans shall be
reviewed with and approved by the customer, when required.
The organization shall maintain records of effective dates of process
changes.

Statement of nonconformity

The system of defining the acceptance criteria is not effective

Objective evidence

As per the control plan –ASPL-CP-020-24 dt 01/3/21, Heat treatment (operation 85-01) – ramp heating, soaking and cooling Heat treatment
activity carried as per the TAS reference. Related to the batch – Grade 27CrMo4 ( 40mm dia- heat no.065194) loaded in furnace on 28oct21, as
per TAS reference - HTBB0052 – raise to 770c@ 2hrs and at 710c soak for 25hrs and 660c @ 1hrs to be made and actual value recorded of
soaking temperature of 709c and 713c seen dated 29oct21 but relevant tolerance/ acceptance value for the above setting value not defined in
control plan.

Justification for classification

However as per the API 6A Annex M tolerance defined for heat treatment is +/-14c and actual recorded values are within tolerance hence
graded as minor

MuthuKumara Narasimhan T 30.Oct.2021 This document is valid without a signature

Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 5/13
 Nonconformity management

To be completed by the organization

Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:

1. Tolerance/ Acceptance value defined in Control Plan

Evidence of implementation

1. Heat treatment Control plan : ASPL- CP-020- 24

Evidence of implementation

Heat treatment control Plan.pdf

Root cause analysis

Why: Tolerance/ acceptance value not defined in Control plan

Why: Tolerance value not defined in FMEA
Why: Validation of Process - Procedure not captured tolerance requirements.

Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? Missing required

Root cause result

Validation of Process - Procedure not captured tolerance requirements.

Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person

1. Tolerance related requirements added in General Management Procedure

Evidence of implementation

1. ASPL-GMP-020-06- Validation of Process - General Management Procedure

Evidence of implementation files

Process Validation GMP.pdf

Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions

1. Special audit done for Validation Process.

Verify effective implementation of corrective actions files

Special Audit - Process Validation.pdf

Submission(s)

Murthy Balaram 20.Dec.2021

Organizations representative date

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 6/13
 Nonconformity management

Nonconformity 3
To be completed by the CB auditor

NC header

NC identification no. MMA-01

Standard IATF 16949:2016

Classification minor

Due date max. 60 days 29.Dec.2021

Nonconformity observed in process Procurement Process including outsourcing process

Standard clause 8.4.2.4.1

Second-party audits

Requirement The organization shall include a second-party audit process in their

supplier management approach. Second-party audits may be used for
the following:
a) supplier risk assessment;
b) supplier monitoring;
c) supplier QMS development;
d) product audits;
e) process audits.
Based on a risk analysis, including product safety/regulatory
requirements, performance of the supplier, and QMS certification level,
at a minimum, the organization shall document the criteria for
determining the need, type, frequency, and scope of second-party
audits.
The organization shall retain records of the second-party audit reports.
If the scope of the second-party audit is to assess the supplier’s
quality management system, then the approach shall be consistent
with the automotive process approach.

Statement of nonconformity

Supplier audit process is partially not effective.

Objective evidence

Process: Outsourcing, Bright bars, Vendor assessment form: ASPL-Rec-003-01, Re-evaluation yearly, Supplier: Mahendra bright bar assessment
dated on 02.07.2021 with Score 80%. Evidences for verification of products and process audited, Control plan and PFMEA verification, customer
complaint CAPA effectiveness verification is not available in the report.

Justification for classification

However, supplier performance verified and found 100% in quality and delivery. 100% inspection available. Frequent visit to outsourcing supplier
by SQA is evidenced. No threat to customer.

Mohamed Maaroof 30.Oct.2021 This document is valid without a signature

Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date

To be completed by the organization

Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:

1. Control plan Collected from Mahindra bright bar

Evidence of implementation

1. Mahindra bright bar _Control plan.

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 7/13
 Nonconformity management

Evidence of implementation

Mahindra bright bar- CP.pdf

Root cause analysis

Why : Vendor Re-evaluation process not effective.

Why: Re evaluation not done by risk based approach
Why: Re-evaluation template not captured all IATF requirements.
Why: Re-evaluation methodology not identified in GMP.

Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? Missing required

Root cause result

Re-evaluation methodology not identified in GMP.

Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person

1. Re-evaluation template revised as per IATF requirements

2. Re-evaluation risk based methodology defined in GMP.

Evidence of implementation

1. Vendor Evaluation form - ASPL-Rec-003-125

2. Outsourced General Management System - ASPL-GMP-020- 03

Evidence of implementation files

Vendor Evaluation form.pdf, Outsourced Procedure.pdf

Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions

1. Special Internal Audit for Outsourced process.

Submission(s)

Murthy Balaram 20.Dec.2021

Organizations representative date

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 8/13
 Nonconformity management

Nonconformity 4
To be completed by the CB auditor

NC header

NC identification no. NHK - 01

Standard IATF 16949:2016

Classification minor

Due date max. 60 days 29.Dec.2021

Nonconformity observed in process Quality Assurance ( NPD & Laboratory)

Standard clause 9.2.2.4

Product audit

Requirement The organization shall audit products using customer-specific required

approaches at appropriate stages of production and delivery to verify
conformity to specified requirements. Where not defined by the
customer, the organization shall define the approach to be used.

Statement of nonconformity

Process of conducting product audit is not fully effective to meet the intent

Objective evidence

Referring to audit report on Bright Bar 63596 part of SAE1040M for Dynamic Transmission customer
Audit done on 22nd Oct 2021
Audit done by - Mr Sai Krishnamurthy
There is no evidence of verification of Stages of production that product has undergone, by auditor

Justification for classification

There is clear evidence of verification/inspn on critical dimension, chemistry, packing, oiling and labeling condition. Manufacturing process
control found to be complied to standard during audit, hence graded minor

Nandakumar krishnaswamy 30.Oct.2021 This document is valid without a signature

Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date

To be completed by the organization

Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:

1. Stage wise verification production of product for Bright bar.

Evidence of implementation

1. Stage wise inspection report for Bright bar.

Evidence of implementation

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 9/13
 Nonconformity management

20211220_142617.jpg 20211220_142906.jpg

20211220_142720.jpg 20211220_142706.jpg

20211220_142340.jpg

Root cause analysis

Why: Product Audit evidenced only delivery stage.

Why: Stage wise production verification not done.
Why: Product Audit format ineffective.

Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? No

Please describe how the root cause does not impact other process? Product audit should be captured in all the stage.

Root cause result

Product Audit format Ineffective.

Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person

1. Product audit format with IATF requirements.

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 10/13
 Nonconformity management

2. Auditing approach defined in General Management System.

3. Yearly product Audit plan.

Evidence of implementation

1. New product audit format with IATF requirements - ASPL - Rec-020-05

2. Internal Audit Program - ASPL-GMP-020-11
3. Yearly Product Audit plan - ASPL-Rec-020-07

Evidence of implementation files

Process Cum Product Audit Checklist.pdf, Internal Audit Program.pdf, Product Audit Plan.pdf

Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions

Product Audit report to be done as per the Yearly plan.

Submission(s)

Murthy Balaram 20.Dec.2021

Organizations representative date

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 11/13
 Nonconformity management

Nonconformity 5
To be completed by the CB auditor

NC header

NC identification no. NHK-02

Standard IATF 16949:2016

Classification minor

Due date max. 60 days 29.Dec.2021

Nonconformity observed in process Quality Assurance ( NPD & Laboratory)

Standard clause 7.1.5.1.1

Measurement systems analysis

Requirement Statistical studies shall be conducted to analyse the variation present

in the results of each type of inspection, measurement, and test
equipment system identified in the control plan. The analytical
methods and acceptance criteria used shall conform to those in
reference manuals on measurement systems analysis. Other
analytical methods and acceptance criteria may be used if approved
by the customer.
Records of customer acceptance of alternative methods shall be
retained along with results from alternative measurement systems
analysis (see Section 9.1.1.1).

Statement of nonconformity

Process of planning appropriate MSA studies for the instruments used to evaluate part quality in the organisation, not fully effective

Objective evidence

On review with master list of Instruments/test equipment found to be 35Nos. There is family wise MSA plan with appropriate study. But on
further review, there is no evidence of considering Hardness tester with appropriate MSA study

Justification for classification

Other study report verified and results are in acceptable limit of variation. Above said equipment found to be well under calibration control,
report of calibration acceptable

Nandakumar krishnaswamy 30.Oct.2021 This document is valid without a signature

Auditor´s name Audit closing meeting date

To be completed by the organization

Correction (Containment) action, including timing and responsible person:

MSA study conducted in Brinell Hardness tester

Evidence of implementation

Brinell Hardness Testing M/C - ID: QA/13, Conducted on 01/11/2021, Specification: 190 (± 10) HBW.

Evidence of implementation

Brinell Hardness Tester - MSA.pdf

Root cause analysis

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 12/13
 Nonconformity management

Why: MSA not done for Hardness Tester

Why: Hardness tester M/c not captured in yearly plan
Why: Criteria not defined properly ("each type of Instruments" in MSA Plan)
Why: Criteria not defined in GMP

Does the root cause impact other similar processes or products? No

Please describe how the root cause does not impact other process? This process followed by only Quality Assurance

Root cause result

Criteria not defined in GMP ("each type of Instruments" in MSA Plan)

Systemic corrective actions, including timing and responsible person

1. MSA yearly plan with criteria - Peri reddy - 10/12/2021

Systemic corrective actions files

Measuremet System Analysis - GMP.pdf

Evidence of implementation

1. Measurement System Analysis plan ; ASPL-Rec-003-130, Rev -02/Date - 07/12/2021

2. Procedure for Measurement System Analysis ; ASPL-GMP-020- 21, Rev 07/ Date - 07/12/2021

Evidence of implementation files

Measuremet System Analysis - GMP.pdf, MSA Plan.pdf

Action taken to verify effective implementation of corrective actions

1. Special audit conducted for Measurement system analysis.

Submission(s)

Murthy Balaram 20.Dec.2021

Organizations representative date

Organization name : ARJAS STEEL PRIVATE CB certificate no.: IN036068- IATF Cara Version 1.2.5
LIMITED 13/13