Guardian
Tier 2 PPAP Guidelines
All submissions shall follow AIAG 4TH
Edition PPAP Submission guidelines
with some exceptions.
 Customer Specific RequirementsDependent upon end customer


Table of contents:

In AIAG format
GMX-215-XLR Decklid Assembly
P/N 10346850
1. Design Records
2. Engineering Change Documents
3. Customer Engineering Approval
4. Design FMEA
5. Process Flow Diagram
6. Process FMEA
7. Control Plan
8. Measurement System Analysis Studies
9. Dimensional Results
10. Material, Performance Test Results
a) GM7400M, GM7459M-SMC material requirements
b) GM3059-Restricted reportable substances
c) 4497-Exterior paint performance
d) 9523P-Paint conductivity
e) 4350M-Painted part performance
f) 9984804- Primer conductivity
g) 3629M-Adhesive requirements
h) 3653-FRP bonding requirements
11. Initial Process Study
12. Qualified Laboratory Results
13. Appearance Approval Report
14. Sample Product
15. Master Sample
16. Checking Aids
17. Records of Compliance (Customer Specific)
18. Part Submission Warrant






Design records – Guardian approved print
is required.
Engineering Change Documents - Required
Customer Engineering Approval- Not
Required
Design FMEA – Required- AIAG Current
Edition
Process Flow – Required –AIAG Current
Edition
Process FMEA – Required -–AIAG Current
Edition

Dimensional resultsA ‘ballooned’ print identifying points
inspected must be provided.
A CMM roadmap is acceptable for CMM
checks.
All Engineering Specifications on the print
must be provided along with the test data
verifying acceptability to the spec.
Material certifications must be provided for
ALL components including, base material,
coatings, grease, wires, tape, etc. Certs
must be from PPAP submitted material,
current and dated.
All IMDS/MSDS information is to be
included and submitted to IMDS site 9949.
Initial Process Study-A summary with
supporting charts and documentation
should be included
 MSA Results – Required – In AIAG
Current Edition
 Qualified Laboratory Results-ISO/TS
Certification
 Control Plan-Required
 PSW-Required-Must be filled out
completely! Run @ Rate (GP-9) must
have supporting documentation in –
AIAG Current Edition

RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
Supplier Name:
SUPPLIER
Part Number(s):
NUMBER
RUN @ RATE REVIEW CONTENT
The Run @ Rate will verify that the results of the supplier's actual manufacturing process meet customer requirements for on-going quality, as
stated in PPAP, and quoted tooling capacity. Also, it will verify that the supplier's actual process is to plan, as documented in PPAP, GP-12 and
the other documentation listed below.
During the Run @ Rate, the following will be reviewed: documentation; the manufacturing process and results; part quality requirements and
results; sub-supplier requirements and Run @ Rate results and packaging.
A.
Documentation
At the time of the Run @ Rate, the following documentation should be available for review:
Available Y/N
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
B.
PPAP package including:
a) process flow diagram
b) process control plan, with reaction plan
c) DFMEA/PFMEA
d) Master part(s)
2.
GP-12 (Pre-launch Control) plan
3.
Tool capacity information
4.
Operator/inspection instructions
5.
Prototype/pilot concerns (PR/R's)
6.
Sub-contractor control/capacity data
7.
Sub-contractor material schedules and transportation
8.
Packaging/labeling plan
9.
Acceleration plan
Note: All documentation must be complete and correct.
MANUFACTURING PROCESS - ACTUAL TO PLAN
1.
Is the product being manufactured at the production site using the production tooling, gaging, process, materials,
operators, environment, and process settings?
Yes
No
Comments:
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.)
Yes
No
Comments:
3.
Are operator instructions/visual controls available and adhere to at each work station?
Yes
4.
No
Comments:
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?
Yes
5.
No
When required, are production boundary samples available at the required work stations? Are the boundary samples
approved by GM?
6.
Comments:
Yes
No
Comments:
Are maintenance plans in place? Are repair and maintenance parts available? Is there planned downtime for
preventive maintenance?
Yes
No
Comments:
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
Supplier Name:
SUPPLIER
Part Number(s):
NUMBER






Appearance Approval Report-Required for
‘A’ surface parts
Bulk Material Requirements – Where
applicable Sample Product – Required – must be from
PPAP submission trial runs and retained at
the supplier location with PPAP
documentation
Master Sample – Required - Must be
retained at Supplier
Checking Aids – Required- IF you have any
part specific gauges and must include
gauge certification.
Record of Compliance with CustomerSpecific Requirements -

Team Feasibility – Required –AIAG
Current Edition
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT
Customer:
GM
Part Number:
NUMBER
Date:
Part Name:
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 a 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 the 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.
Feasible
Changes 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
Team Member/Title/Date
Team Member/Title/Date
Team Member/Title/Date
Team Member/Title/Date

Must include all –AIAG Current
Edition A1 through A8 forms
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
1 Was the SFMEA and/or DFMEA prepared using
the DaimlerChrysler, 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 considered?
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?
7 Have appropriate corrective actions been
assigned to high severity numbers?
8 Have risk priorities been revised when corrective
actions have been completed and verified?
Revision Date:
Prepared By:
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
A. General
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Does the design require:
l New materials?
/
l Special tooling?
/
Has assembly build variation analysis been
considered?
Has Design of Experiments been considered?
Is there a plan for prototypes in place?
/
Has a DFMEA been completed?
/
Has a DFMA been completed?
Have service and maintenance issues been
considered?
Has the Design Verification Plan been
considered?
If yes, was it completed by a cross functional
team?
Are all specified tests, methods, equipment and
acceptance criteria clearly defined and
understood?
Have Special Characteristics been selected?
/
Is bill of material complete?
/
Are Special Characteristics properly
documented?
B. Engineering Drawings
Have dimensions that affect fit, function and
durability been identified?
Are reference dimensions identified to minimize
inspection layout time?
Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces
identified to design functional gages?
Are tolerances compatible with accepted
manufacturing standards?
Are there any requirements specified that
cannot be evaluated using known inspection
techniques?
C. Engineering Performance Specifications
20 Have all special characteristics been identified?
/
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 subcontractor?
/
26 Is the specified test sampling size and/or
frequency feasible?
27 If required, has customer approval been obtained
for test equipment?
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
Does the design require:
l New materials?
/
l Quick change?
/
l Volume fluctuations?
/
l Mistake proofing?
/
Have lists been prepared identifying:
l New equipment?
/
l New tooling?
/
l New test equipment?
/
Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for:
l New equipment?
/
l New tooling?
/
l New test equipment?
/
Will a preliminary capability study be conducted
at the tooling and/or equipment manufacturer?
12 Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy
been established?
13 Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for
equipment and tooling?
14 Are setup instructions for new equipment and
tooling complete and understandable?
15 Will capable gages be available to run
preliminary process capability studies at the
equipment supplier's facility?
16 Will preliminary process capability studies be
run at the processing plant?
17 Have process characteristics that affect special
product characteristics been identified?
18 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
Prepared By:
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
1 Is the assistance of the customer's quality
assurance or product engineering activity
needed to develop or concur to the control plan?
2 Has the supplier identified who will be the quality
liaison with the customer?
3 Has the supplier identified who will be the quality
liaison with its suppliers?
4 Has the quality assurance system been
reviewed using the Chrysler, Ford, and General
Motors Quality System Assessment?
Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:
l Control plan requirements?
5
/
l Layout inspection?
6
/
l Engineering performance testing?
7
/
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l Problem resolution analysis?
/
Is there a documented training program that:
l Includes all employees?
/
l Lists whose been trained?
/
l Provides a training schedule?
/
Has training been completed for:
l Statistical process control?
/
l Capability studies?
/
l Problem solving?
/
l Mistake proofing?
/
l Other topics as identified?
/
Is each operation provided with process
instructions that are keyed to the control plan?
Are standard operator instructions available at
each operation?
Were operator/team leaders involved in
developing standard operator instructions?
Do inspection instructions include:
l Easily understood engineering performance
specifications?
l Test frequencies?
/
l Sample sizes?
/
l Reaction plans?
/
l Documentation?
/
Are visual aids:
l Easily understood?
/
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
1 Does the floor plan identify all required process
and inspection points?
2 Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools,
and equipment at each operation been
considered?
3 Has sufficient space been allocated for all
equipment?
Are process and inspection areas:
4
l Of adequate size?
/
5
l Properly lighted?
/
6 Do inspection areas contain necessary
equipment and files?
Are there adequate:
7
l Staging areas?
/
8
l Impound areas?
/
9 Are inspection points logically located to prevent
shipment of nonconforming products?
10 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?
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
Prepared By:
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
1 Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of
production and inspection stations?
2 Were all appropriate FMEA's (SFMEA, DFMEA)
available and used 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, slide containers,
etc.?
5 Has the pull system/optimization been
considered for this process?
6 Have provisions been made to identify and
inspect reworked product before being used?
7 Have potential quality problems due to handling
and outside processing been identified and
corrected?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
1 Was the Process FMEA prepared using the
Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors guidelines?
2 Have all operations affecting fit, function,
durability, governmental regulations and safety
been identified and listed sequentially?
3 Were similar part FMEA's considered?
4 Have historical campaign and warranty data
been reviewed?
5 Have appropriate corrective actions been
planned or taken for high risk priority items?
6 Have appropriate corrective actions been
planned or taken for high severity numbers?
7 Were risk priorities 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 in terms of
the subsequent operation, assembly, and
product?
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 controlled?
13 Where detection is the major factor, have
provisions been made to control the cause prior
to the next operation?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
1 Was the control plan methodology referenced in
Section 6 used in preparing the control plan?
2 Have all known customer complaints been
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 pan 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
Prepared By:
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
All pre-production and initial job
launch components must have GP-12
inspection. A review of the GP-12
inspection process may be
requested.
 A separate APQP file must be
obtained prior to PPAP and include
the following documents.

REQUIREDAPQP Open Issues
REQUIRED
Lessons Learned Process Overview
SQE
High Impact Assesment/Supplier Assessment
REQUIRED
APQP Kick-off Meeting Checklist
REFERENCE
Process Control Plan Audit Worksheet
REQUIREDGuardian and Supplier Program Contacts
REQUIREDRPN Reduction Summary Chart
REQUIRED
Directed Buy/Directed Source Checklist]
REQUIRED
Subcontractor Program Status Matrix
SQE
Subcontractor Detailed Status Matrix
REFERENCE
Fixture Design Matrix
REQUIRED
Packaging approval
1927-5
1927-10
HIA
1927-14
1927-16
1927-16
1927-21
1927-23
1927-25
1927-26
1927-27
PPPA
APQP Open Issues
Supplier/
Mfg Location:
Duns Number:
Supplier Contact:
GM SQE Contact:
*Type Key:
Issue
No.
Issue
Date
Part Number(s):
Program(s):
Part Name:
S = Design-Supplier
G = Design-GM
F = Facilities
Severity
T = Tooling
C = Capacity
L = Late Release
Issues
Description and/or Sketch
Status:
25% Issue Identified
50% Action Plan Proposed
75% Action Plan Implemented
100% Issue Resolved
M = Manufacturing/Process
O = Other :_
_
P = Purchasing
Person
Responsible
(Name)
*
Type
R = Production Control
A - Appearance
K – Packaging Engineering
Action Plan
&
Progress to Plan
Severity: 1 - Director Support
2 - Manager/Supervisor Support
3 - SQE Support
I - Logistics
Forecast
Completion
Date
Status
Reviewed by __________________ Date __________
Program
0
Date:
Commodity
Customer
Gate 6 Meeting Attendees
0
Program Team
Issues
Gate 1 Lessons Learned
Responses
Responsible
Dept/Group
Recommended and Corrective Actions
DATE:
PROJECT/ PROGRAM:
PART NO:
SUPPLIER:
PART DESCRIPTION:
MANUFACTURING LOCATION
MANUFACTURING LOCATION DUNS #
Guardian SQE to confirm manufacturing location is the same as stated on the supplier RFQ response and Guardian contract.
Prior to the Kick Off Meeting supplier should ensure full understanding of the APQP Project Plan (1927-1) and all related procedures.
Any issue requiring clarification needs to be addressed to Guardian SQE.
Section 1. Customer Requirements - All unresolved items must be added to Open Issues List
1. Does the supplier have and understand the latest information about program timing (e.g. Design release, Tooling Order,
Prototype, Matching, PPV, MVBns, MVBs, SORP)? Is the supplier familiar with the quality requirements by build level?
Yes
No
Explain:
Review Program Milestones with supplier.
Key Project Milestones
Dates
Key Project Milestones
Dates
2. Does the supplier have a clear understanding which GM receiving plant(s) he will supply? Are there any requirements for
supplier support at a GM location other than the receiving location? E.g. remote Pilot Line.
Yes
No
Explain:
Review GM Receiving plants with supplier. Ensure relevant Guardian plant contacts are included in Guardian & Supplier Program
Contacts.
Guardian Receiving Plant
Guardian Receiving Plant
3. Does the supplier have a clear understanding
If “ no” , the supplier shall review with the plant?
Yes
No
Explain:
of
the
Guardian
receiving
plant
GCA
standards?
4. Is contact established between supplier and Guardian supply chain? Review packaging or shipping open issues.
Yes
No
Explain:
5. Does supplier understand that APQP performance is linked to the bidders list? For example Program Management SCAR’s.
Yes
No
Explain:
Section 2. Product Design & Development - All unresolved items must be added to Open Issues List
6. Does the supplier have and understand all of the latest drawings and specifications including Statement of Requirements (SOR),
Sub System Technical Specification (SSTS), Component Technical Specification (CTS) and all Guardian Standards (STD)?
Yes
No
Explain plans to obtain:
7.
Specify who is responsible for design, Guardian or supplier.
GM
Supplier
Comments:
GUARDIAN AND
SUPPLIER PROGRAM
CONTACTS
Part Name:
Program:
Supplier Name:
Manufacturing Location Address:
Manufacturing Manager:
Position
SQE
Name
Part Number:
Model Year:
Duns #
Phone
Phone
GUARDIAN
Phone
E-mail
Position Name
Proj/Prog
Manager
Buyer
Sales Mgr
Design
Engineer
Validation
Engineer
Design
Engineer
Quality
Manager
Quality
Engineer
Manufact
uring
VLE/PPM
Mfg
Engineer
Guardian
Plant Rep
Lab Spv
Proj/Prog
Manager
Pkg
Engineer
1st shift
contact
2nd shift
contact
3rd shift
contact
Sales Mgr
Logistics
GD&T
Containeriz
ation
Logisitics
SUPPLIER
Phone
E-mail
Process Capability Over Time
Supplier Name:
Supplier DUNS No.:
Commodity:
Part Description:
Part number:
Drawing Date:
KPC
PQC
1
2
3
____________________________________
Date Revised:
_________________________
____________________________________
Program:
_________________________
____________________________________________________
Model Year:
_________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________ Engineering Change Level:_________________________ EWO #________________________
Product
Characteristic
Selection
Rational
DIM.
SPEC.
TOLERANCE
Supplier
Program
Review 3
PPAP
APPROVAL
Supplier
Program
Review 4
Avg Std Ppk
Dev
Avg Std Ppk
Dev
Avg Std Ppk
Dev
CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT
GP-8
Avg Std
Dev
Cpk
Directed Buy / Directed Source Checklist
Complex System/Sub-assembly:
Guardian SQE:
Guardian Buyer:
Guardian Product Engineer:
Type Name
Date:
Manufacturing Location:
Directed Buy Subcontractor:
Sub Components:
Signature
Tier I
GA Directed
Supplier
Design Responsibility
Is there any problem with the tier I supplier gaining access to
APQP Responsibility
directed supplier's manufacturing location, to review manufacturing
Tooling Payment
and quality processes due to proprietary or competitor reasons?
Production / Functional / FMVSS Testing
Technical Specifications
If so, How do we handle these?
Quality Issues Ownership at
Assembly Plant
Scheduling Responsibility
Packaging Responsibility
PPAP Responsibility
Ensure all issues are resolved by the GM Buyer, Tier I, and the Directed
Run @ Rate Responsibility
Supplier.
Engineering Change Coordination
Additional Comments:
Support During Build and Launch
at Assembly Plant
DFMEA / PFMEA / SFMEA
Signature
Directed Buy Program Manager:
Directed Supplier President/CEO/Owner
Date
Complete the Checklist during the Commodity Sourcing Strategy meeting
and review it during the APQP Kick-Off meeting - Supplier Gate Review #1.
Signature
Date
Tier I Program Manager:
Subcontractor Program Status Matrix
Date:
Tier 1 Supplier / Plant:
Tier 1 Supplier Key Contact:
Directed Buy
(yes/no)
Subcontractor
Subcomponent
If Yes,
% Complete
SQE:
Facilities:
Greenfield /
Transplant Y/N
Programs:
Status / GYR
System/Sub-assembly:
Prod.
Tooling % Prod.
Complete
Tool
PPAP
Date
Complete Date
* This document should be reviewed at all Gate Reviews for all sub components.
Revision:
PPAP Status &
Comments
Run @
Rate
Date
Run @
Rate
Status
Guardian
Tier 2 Suppliers
Thank You!