2. OBJECTIVES:
• Define Corrective Action (C/A) and Root
Cause
• Identify when to issue CARs
• Define levels of Corrective Action
• Identify contractual requirements impacting
Schedule & Delivery Management in support
of Corrective Action Request issuance
• Provide examples C/A issuance
2
3. CAR Definition :
A request for root cause
remedy of a
contractual
noncompliance
3
4. Root Cause Definition :
That condition, action, or lack
of action that led to the
problem occurring.
Note: Root cause has been identified
when effective corrective action will
prevent problem recurrence
4
5. WHAT?
• Actions taken to eliminate conditions that
resulted in a contractual noncompliance
– Root cause of noncompliance should be identified
– Efforts are to the extent of precluding recurrence
of non-compliant condition
5
6. •
•
•
•
WHY (DCMC requirements)
Directly impacts contractor delivery
performance
CARs identified as Output of surveillance
effort
Tool to facilitate timely delivery
Rationale that supports surveillance activity
6
7. WHY (DCMC requirements)
• Supports “Right Time” metrics
1.1.2
Improve on Time Deliveries
1.1.3
Reduce Outstanding
Deliveries
1.1.8
Improve ratio
Alerts/Delinquencies
7
8. •
•
•
•
•
WHEN
On time delivery rate is < 90%
Data analysis indicates contractual
noncompliance trend
Do not issue CAR for EACH delinquency
Root cause analysis identifies processes
contributing to poor delivery rates
Contractor is non-responsive to previous
CARs (escalation…)
8
9. HOW
•
•
•
•
DLAD 5000.4 PROCAS
Any employee can initiate a CAR
Maintain a record of all CARs issued, followup and close-out actions
C/A implementation and effectiveness of
contractor actions shall be verified
Four Levels of Corrective Action
9
10. • LEVEL I
–
–
–
–
contractual noncompliance
requires no special attention
directed to working level personnel
may be verbal or written
10
11. • LEVEL II
– written request
– systemic non-compliances
– directed to contractor mgmt responsible for the
process
– Inform CAT of issuance
11
12. • LEVEL III
–
–
–
–
–
serious non-compliances to contractor top mgmt.
Gov’t may pursue contractual remedies
coordination w/ ACO & Cmdr prior to issuance
issued by Team Leader or above
copy buying activity & cognizant Gov’t ofc at
prime as applicable
– Contractor immediately placed on the CAL until
C/A is verified and CAR closed out
12
13. • LEVEL IV
– involve contractual remedies
– must be issued by ACO, countersigned by Team
Chief or above
– copy of CAR and all correspondence to buying
activities.
– proper coordination between CAOs, Districts, HQ,
customers and other affected Gov’t activities
before issuance
13
14. • LEVEL IV(cont’d)
– assure all resolution efforts are in concert
– contractor immediately placed on the Contractor
Alert List (CAL) until C/A verification and CAR
close-out
14
15. DLAM 8000.5, PROCAS
• CAO management maintain visibility of all
LEVEL II and above CARs
• Escalation, due to non-responsiveness to
lower level CARs, as determined by the
Contract Administration Team
15
16. Contractual Requirements
• Although schedule violation is basic area of
Production related C/A, manufacturing
processes, (such as Manufacturing planning,
MRP II, work measurement, material
handling, integrated product development
and facility management) are likely to be
found as the root cause areas.
16
17. Contractual Requirements
• Contractor’s requirement relative to
many floor level manufacturing
processes are covered in Contract
requirements referencing Quality.
17
18. Contractual Requirements
• BOTTOMLINE: Do not limit
applicability of “contract
requirements” based on functional
area (i.e. quality or production)...
compliance to contract requirements
includes compliance to the delivery
schedule.
18
19. Contractual Requirements
• Complete contract review must be
done -to identify contractor
obligations under the contract
-to identify contractual
noncompliances
-reference applicable contractual
requirements in CARs
19
21. Contractual Requirements
• FAR 9.104.1 General Standards
“To be determined responsible, a …
contractor must…be able to comply
with the required or proposed delivery
or performance schedule…”
21
22. Contractual Requirements
• FAR 46.105 Contractor
Responsibilities
“The contractor is responsible for
carrying out its obligation under the
contract by…”
22
23. Contractual Requirements
• FAR 46.105 Contractor
Responsibilities
“Tendering to the Government… supplies
or services that conform to contract
requirements…”
23
24. Contractual Requirements
• FAR 46.105 Contractor Responsibilities
“The contractor may be required to provide and
maintain an inspection system or program for
the control of quality that is acceptable to the
Government...”
24
25. Contractual Requirements
• FAR 46.105 Contractor Responsibilities
“The control of quality by the contractor may
relate to, but is not limited to...”
“Manufacturing processes, to ensure that the
product is produced to and meets the
contract’s technical requirements;…”
25
26. Contractual Requirements
• FAR 46.105 Contractor Responsibilities
“…Procedures and processes for services to
ensure that services meet contract
performance requirements…”
26
27. Defense Priorities Allocation System
(DPAS) Requirements
15 CFR 700.13(d)(2)
states in part, “….shipment or performance will be
delayed, the person must notify the customer
immediately, give the reasons for the delay, and advise
of a new shipment or performance date.
27
29. • Contractual Requirements
• MIL-Q-9858A Quality System Requirements
• Para 1.3 Summary
“All supplies and services under contract,
whether manufactured or performed within the
contractors plant or at any other source shall
be controlled at all points necessary to
assure conformance to contractual
requirements…”
29
30. Contractual Requirements
• MIL-Q-9858A Quality System Requirements
• Para 1.4 Relation to Other Contract
Requirements
• “The contractor is responsible for compliance
with all provisions of the contract and for
furnishing specified supplies and services
which meet all the requirements of the
contract.”
30
32. Verbal or Level I - Situation A
• While reviewing a random sample of purchase orders, the
functional specialist notices DPAS not being flowed down to
sub-vendors from prime contractor
• The functional specialist discusses the requirement with the
contractor’s purchasing agent, who acknowledges omission
and immediately issues P.O. modification to correct the error.
• Corrective action is furthered by the contractor amending his
work instructions/procedures, requiring flow-down of DPAS
requirements
32
33. Level II - Situation A
• Functional Specialist notices a negative trend in
Ontime delivery performance
• Further analysis reveals consistent problem with
(sub)vendor material having to be reworked after
Gov’t rejection in receiving inspection.
• Reworked material comes from same sub-vendor,
and is routinely received weeks after the planned
in-house receipt date.
33
34. Level II - Situation A (con’t)
• Production functional specialist coordinates with
the Quality specialist and issues a written CAR
based on the negative delivery performance trend
and the consistently late receipt of deficient subvendor product.
• The Production functional specialist’s root cause
analysis identifies concern in the area of purchase
issuance i.e. are P.O.s being issued with adequate
lead time…how is the prime contractor controlling
his subcontractor
34
35. Level II - Situation A (con’t)
• Intensity of functional surveillance is
increased until an acceptable corrective
action response is received, implemented
and validated.
35
36. Level III - Situation A
• Contractor is non-responsive to previously
issued Level II CARs, as evidenced in
Gov’t documentation
• Continued missed internal milestones, due
to late receipt of sub-vendor product
36
37. Level III - Situation A
• Situation is coordinated with CAT members
• CAR is escalated by written issuance to
head of contractor organization, noting that
continued inaction may lead to more severe
measures
37
38. Verbal or Level I - Situation B
• Contractor processing/working hardware
not identified in daily schedule/bucket.
Conflict to internal procedures.
• Currently not impacting overall delivery
status however trend of working
around/outside daily schedule could have
negative impact on contract delivery
schedule.
38
39. Level II - Situation B
• Contractor continuing to process work
outside daily schedules/buckets. Still not
impacting contract delivery schedule,
however in violation of internal procedures
and production plan. Internal tracking of
hardware becoming difficult to manage,
monitor and identify.
39
40. Level II Situation B (con’t)
• Prior to issuance, coordinate action/activity
with CAO team. Explain impact.
• CAR issued to Production/Manufacturing
Manager with copy to production line
supervisor. (Good idea to copy the
contractor’s Quality Assurance department)
40
41. Level III - Situation B
• Contractor’s lack of action relative to
previous activity have now caused a
delinquent posture to delivery schedule.
Identifying and tracking hardware most
difficult. The problem extends beyond
main production line to spare part activity,
retrofit effort, and impacting inventory
accuracy.
41
42. Level III Situation B (con’t)
• Unsure of contractor’s ability to ship end
items due to the lack of identification and
tracking ability. Build up/cushion of assets
no longer available.
• Contractor not able to provide a valid “get
well” date.
42
43. Level IV - Situation B
• Contractor’s lack of action now impacts
delivery posture (contract delinquency)
• Lack of action adversely impacting
associated systems (inventory management,
BOM accuracy, release quality, financial
inaccuracies, etc.)
43
44. Points to Remember
• Corrective action cannot be accomplished without
understanding contractual requirements
• Corrective action efforts will be ineffective
without ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS
Reference Root Cause Analysis Guide
- Definitions
- Process Focus
- Methods
44
45. Points to Remember
• CAR = request for root cause remedy of
contractual noncompliance
• Adequacy of stated C/A determined via
follow-up verification of
implementation and objective evidence
of compliant condition.
• Root Cause identification is Government and
contractor concern.
45
46. Points to Remember
• Root cause analysis will uncover
Manufacturing process areas
contributing to the nonconformance
– promotes modified surveillance efforts by
the Industrial Specialist
– promotes increased process
understanding by the Industrial Specialist
– promotes evaluation of process
efficiencies and effectiveness by the
Industrial Specialist or Industrial Engineer
46
Conceptually in the DCMC scheme of things when we speak of corrective action we are always looking for root cause remedy…since our definition references “contractual noncompliance” the inference is that the request is made to the contractor.
Logically speaking no matter the specifics of the problem, if we manage to correct or remove the cause of the problem it is not likely to reoccur …unless there are process changes i.e. manpower/people, machinery/equipment, methods, material. You gain awareness of process changes during process surveillance
Understanding this concept is key in understanding process management, determining effective corrective action and performing follow-up surveillance.
In that we are requesting corrective action from the supplier, we would expect the contractor to address actions taken to eliminate the conditions that resulted in (root cause of) the non-compliant condition.
The supplier’s corrective action efforts should be extensive enough to prevent the noncompliance from happening again.
(In short here we are defining what constitutes EFFECTIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION…in other words this is the expected activity by the supplier in addressing our request for corrective action).
WHY do we issue Corrective Action Requests?
Per our DCMC requirements (i.e. ONE BOOK 5.1) when contractual non- compliances impact delivery performance we are to seek improvement/compliance/correction from the contractor.
Our performance of (delivery) surveillance provides us with the opportunity to identify contractual non-compliances.
Surveillance may uncover contractual noncompliances which should be addressed via a corrective action request (i.e. CARs can result from/be an output of surveillance activity).
A corrective action request is a tool to influence the contractor towards remedying the root causes of his contractual non-compliances, so as to meet the contractual requirement of timely delivery.
Trend analysis of past non-compliances serves as a gauge for subsequent surveillance effort. Additionally corrective action tracking will likely result in recurring monitoring by the Gov’t…this effort should be noted in your Risk Handling plan (reference S&DM guidebook)
Since corrective action efforts are based on correcting contractual noncompliances including delivery performance, our efforts to achieve effective (root cause) corrective action will conceptually improve the contractors delivery performance and will be reflected in the metrics.
Per the the Schedule & Delivery Management chapter of the One Book...Moderate & High Risk suppliers must include “requesting corrective action for a suppliers production schedule & control system”.
Caution against issuing a CAR for each delinquent schedule. Recommend you first collect data then do analysis (trend). Based upon you results, take the appropriate action. REMEMBER: Multiple Level I’s, for same/similar non-compliance, may be an indicator of a larger/systemic problem.
Per the One Book, Schedule & Delivery Management chapter we are to use “the PROCAS methodology to identify processes contributing to poor delivery rates, analyze those processes for root causes…eliminate/minimize the effects of the root causes”
Also when a contractor has been non-responsive to previous CAR issuance we are to escalate the corrective action effort.
(This chart is self explanatory…)
Per the PROCAS chapter of the One Book…any employee can initiate a Corrective Action Request.
We are to maintain a record (i.e.. A log or Database) of all CARs issued (verbal or written CARs). The record should document issuance, follow-up and closeout activity related to each CAR. RECOMMEND: use “integrated” (multi-functional) facility CAR log, which promotes opportunity for plant-wide trend analysis.
The follow-up effort includes verifying the implementation of the stated C/A along with verifying the effectiveness of the contractors actions i.e. has the problem been resolved to the point of non-recurrance.
There are 4 levels of C/A and are noted as follows…(next chart)
(self explanatory)
self explanatory
(SELF EXPLANATORY)
Gov’t contractual remedies may equate to reductions in progress payments, cost disallowances, cure notices, show cause letters or business management system disapprovals.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: When addressing contractual remedies, remember each functional discipline has their own area of responsibility i.e. when the I/S collects and analyses data identifies a series of concerns, and provides a recommendation to the ACO for the action, the ACO must be willing to take appropriate actions to convey to the contractor that business is not going to be “as usual”.
CAL is currently inactive...DCMC is addressing the concern
SELFEXPLANATORY
SELF EXPLANATORY
CAL is currently inactive...DCMC is addressing the concern. As soon as the system is up and running, direction will be provided.
REMEMBER we are required to maintain documentation of all CARs…which includes Level 1. Trend analysis of level I’s may point to systemic problems warranting issuance of level II.
Schedule is the primary violation in production related non-compliance…however care must be exercised in the realization that the manufacturing processes that attributed to the non-compliance must be subject to Industrial Specialist surveillance to verify prevention of recurrence, process efficiency and effectiveness.
Recognize that “contractual Quality requirements” are the lead into manufacturing process contract requirements and may be the referenced contract violation.
Manufacturing processes must function appropriately in order to produce conforming products, on time…which are (BOTH) contractual requirements.
The accomplishment of on time delivery is precede by efficient and effective manufacturing process operations that adequately respond to process changes without compromising the objective of timely output (delivery).
Ideally the pursuit of root cause corrective action needs to be a collaborative effort between Industrial Specialists and Quality Assurance Specialists and Industrial Engineers. The focus for the Industrial Specialist is on schedule impact and the efficiencies in contractor operations to respond to situations without negatively affecting timely delivery.
The Quality Assurance Specialist is innately involved at process level and may identified issues that may ultimately be the cause of schedule problems. The QAS can serve as a valuable resource to assess the effectiveness of contractor C/A efforts and provide a heads of circumstances likely to affect delivery. Additionally the Industrial engineer serves as a valuable resource in understanding, evaluating process efficiency and effectiveness.
Must stress the importance of complete contract review. we never want to embarrass ourselves by issuing a CAR for a requirement that is not a part of the contract…not to mention the potential legal ramifications that can arise from such an fraction on our parts.
The following slides are provided to familiarize you with some note worthy contractual call outs, including Federal Acquisition regulation (FAR) references and many traditionally thought of as only pertaining to Quality Assurance but in actually have application to the Schedule & delivery Management world, as well. Certainly what is presented here is not all inclusive….
Remember the corrective action process requires that we “do our homework”…starting with the clear understanding of what the contractor is bound to under the contract- that he accepted.
LEAD IN SLIDE…FOR NEXT
Contracts are awarded on the basis of a supplier being able to comply with contract requirements I.e. delivery or performance schedule.
The expectation exists for the contractor to maintain his responsible status in order to provided what is contracted for in the contract (included on time delivery)
(lead in slide…flow to next slide)
“tendering” equates to providing/supplying/delivering….
“Conformance to the contract” includes “tendering…by the contractually specified date”
How does this relate to delivery?
If there are quality issues that are the root cause of a schedule noncompliance the contractor has not only violated schedule but has violate other contractual requirements…
Remember the ROOT CAUSE to many delivery problems are manufacturing processes. this reference is provided to show that the FAR mandates “…control of manufacturing processes
to ensure that the product
The contractor is responsible for maintaining procedures and processes that ensure services meet contract performance requirements…contractual performance requirements include on time delivery
NOTE: “THE PERSON” as referenced in the DPAS reference refers to whoever accepted the order…more appropriately identified as “the Supplier”
Although the reference pertains to “Quality System Requirements” the requirement includes “all areas of contract performance” which most certainly includes assurance of providing procurements on time...
This reference outlines the requirements that both prime and sub-contractors are expected to control efforts, associated with the contracted supplies or services, to assure conformance to contractual requirements….ON TIME DELIVERY is a contractual requirement.
This reference, from Mil-Q, further under scores what we already know - that the contractor is responsible for compliance to all aspects of the contract…including timely (on-time) delivery
The following slides will provide you with two situational examples…progressing from level I thru IV CARs.
Discussion is encouraged….
Violation: DPAS and Mil I (work instructions)
Schedule & Deliver Management chapter of the one book requires issuance of CAR to Production Schedule and Control System when On time deliver rate is less than 90%
This is a prime example of an “integrated” corrective action effort where the areas of non-compliance affect both the QA arena and Schedule & Delivery Management concerns
CAR is issued against the contractors production schedule and control system and prime control over subs (Mil-Q requirements)
Contract noncompliance:
No delivery impact at this time, however violation to supplier’s internal procedures for scheduling daily work. Also violation of FAR 46.105, Contractor Responsibilities (ref: slide 27)
Contractor’ build plan provides a 30 day lead time between part manufacture and sale. There is a 30 day supply of assets (cushion) prior to contract delivery.
Working outside their daily schedule creates a breakdown within the manufacturing processes because of ??????? I DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS BERT
Situation continues, no remedy taken by the contractor.
In addition to previous conditions, now the internal tracking of hardware becomes a problem.
Violation to contractor’s work instructions/procedures.
As a help to the reader, you may want to add (continued) at the bottom ot the slide.
Will do
The extension of this problem now goes beyond the production line, impacting many of the support processes (see slide 43)
At this point, the supplier’s ability to identify and track the hardware is difficult. Paperwork must be annotated to document the “work arounds”.
Get well dates are difficult to identify because the contractor’s records may not be accurate. Inventory/assets counts may not be accurate.
The importance of knowing the contractual requirements cannot be over emphasized. We can not readily identify violations with first understanding/knowing what is required in the contract. We may find ourselves educating the contractor on what he signed up to.
Please refer to the Root Cause Analysis Guide, which provides definitions and methods by which to conduct Root Cause Analysis.
At this point review the guide …Methods will be explored during the workshop .
This chart serves as a bulleted review of areas explored during the module…these are points to stress….
Please refer to the Root Cause Analysis Guide, which provides definitions and methods by which to conduct Root Cause Analysis