Attachment_3_-_PM_SPE_FORM_3_-_Corrective_Action_Report_(CAR).pdf
PDF 86 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W91CRB-19-R-0038
About this file
This document is a template for a Corrective Action Report (CAR) used by contractors responding to quality issues identified by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The CAR template outlines an eight section format for contractors to document problem descriptions, containment actions, root cause analyses, corrective action plans, validation of corrective actions, prevention of future errors, and standardization of processes. Contractors must submit a completed CAR to DCMA within 15 working days of issue identification, including signatures from the problem solving team and DCMA acceptance. The template provides guidance and requests information to ensure contractors adequately address quality issues and implement lasting corrective measures verified by DCMA to prevent reoccurrence.
The related federal contract opportunity is a solicitation from the U.S. Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground to provide Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPIs) in support of Foreign Military Sales cases over five years. The IDIQ contract may make up to three awards, with one set-aside for small businesses. SAPIs must comply with domestic sourcing requirements and be ballistically tested to specified standards. Offerors must submit product demonstration models for evaluation by specified response dates. The solicitation and amendments are available electronically and offerors should monitor for updates.
Attachment 3 - PM SPE FORM 3 - Corrective Action Report (CAR)
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W91CRB-19-R-0038-0004.pdf | ||
| W91CRB-19-R-0038-0003.pdf | ||
| Attachment_10_-_SAPI_Pricing_Matrix_-_UPDATED.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W91CRB-19-R-0038-0002.pdf | ||
| Attachment_11_-_SPS_SCG_-_31_Oct_14.pdf | ||
| W91CRB-19-R-0038-0001.pdf | ||
| Document_Release_Approval_Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_2_-_PS_SPE_FORM_1_-_Engineering_Change_Request_(ECR).pdf | ||
| Solicitation_-_W91CRB-19-R-0038.pdf | ||
| Attachment_4_-_PM_SPE_FORM_15_-_Process_Control_Plan.pdf | ||
| Attachment_9_-_Draft_DD254_Contract_Security_Classification_Specification.pdf | ||
| Attachment_6_-_Contract_Data_Requirements_List_(CDRLs).pdf | ||
| Attachment_8_-_Small_Business_Participation_Commitment_Document.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_5_-_Production_Readiness_Review(PRR).pdf | ||
| Attachment_7_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_10_-_SAPI_Pricing_Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PM SPE Corrective Action Report
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 1 of 8 Revision 2.0
INSTRUCTION PAGE 1
Discipline Category Requested Information
Problem Description Section 1
Problem Description – The following shall be documented:
A detailed, specific description of the problem How many items were initially found that contain the problem When was the problem discovered Where was the problem discovered
How was the problem discovered Note: This section will be completed by the CAR Issuing Activity.
Problem Solution Team
Section 2
A list of Team Members that includes the following information shall be documented:
Member name Member title Member phone number Approval authority Member e-mail address
Containment Actions / Short Term Corrections
Section 3
The quantity of suspect product at the Contractor’s facility (this include Subcontractors and material suppliers). This is to include the method of Quarantine, Quarantine Identification, method of Certification against the problem and Certification Identification. (Example: If product is screened and bad product is removed, good product is re-packaged and the package has a green “Certified” label adhered to it).
The quantity of suspect product in transit. This is to include the method of notification to the recipient. A proposed method of Certification against the problem (Return Authorization, Contractor to go on-site and rework or screen product, etc.). A method of Certification Identification.
The quantity of suspect product in the Government’s possession. This is to include Return Authorization and details of Quarantine and Certification upon receipt back into the Contractor’s facility, or details of arrangements made for Quarantine and Certification at the Government’s facility.
Root Cause Analysis Section 4
Root Cause Analysis – The following shall be documented:
An explanation of why the failure happened.
An explanation of why the failure was not detected.
NOTE: Root Cause Verification – Explain in detail what actions were taken to assure the TRUE Root Cause was found
Corrective Action Plan
Section 5
Document the specific plan for changes to meet the contract and product requirements for the items that were out of control. This plan shall include the responsible individual for each action plan item along with the expected date of completion.
INSTRUCTION PAGE
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 2 of 8
Discipline Category Requested Information
Validation Section 6
Identify each nonconformance individually and include the corrective action implemented.
Applicable to the occurrence of the problem:
List each Action individually and include the date of implementation and the name of the Team
Member responsible.
Provide detail for each Action of how it was proven that the action taken eliminated the problem. Include the date and the name of the Team Member responsible.
Applicable to the non-detection of the problem:
List each Action individually and include the date of implementation and the name of the Team
Member responsible.
Provide detail for each Action of how it was proven that the action taken eliminated the problem. Include the date and the name of the Team Member responsible.
The following shall be documented:
Describe the methods used (i.e. – number of trials with corrections in place, measurements, inspections, etc. Including data of number inspected vs. number of subject defects found, etc.)
to verify the actions taken are effective and will remain effective. Include hard data as applicable.
Prevention Error Proofing
Section 7
Consider other processes where these Corrective Actions could be of benefit.
Identify Poke-Yoke’s or error proofing processes implemented for each problem.
Standardization and Control
Section 7B
The following shall be documented:
Provide details regarding updates of documents such as – Process Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis (FMEA), Process Control Plan, Process Flow Diagrams, Visual Aids, Work Instructions, Operating Procedures, Training Methods / Records, Preventive Maintenance Plans, Etc.
Examples of each, as applicable, should be included with the Corrective Action Report.
Signatures Section 8
The following shall be documented:
List the Team Members by name, input the date and allow each Team Member the opportunity to comment on the project.
Secure DCMA signature on CAR response
CAR Timeline:
NOTE: Contractor shall not exceed 15 working days for final CAR response without written request for an extension from DCMA.
Gov. notification to the Contractor
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
Day
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
DAY
CAR response Section 4-6 completed
CAR response Section 2-3 completed
Final CAR response updated: Section 7-8, completed
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 3 of 8
Supplier:
Address:
Point of Contact: Phone Number: Fax Number:
CAR Number: CAR Date: Click here to enter a date.
Status: Open Closed Recurrent Failure: Yes No Part Name: Affected Part Number:
1. Problem Description
Description of the problem:
How many parts have the problem?
When were the parts found?
Where were the parts found?
How were the parts found?
2. Problem Solution Team Name: Position: Phone Number: Email Address:
3. Containment Action Your action taken to capture all non-conforming product in your inventory, finished goods, WIP, & in transit, prior to receipt Action:
Assignee: Date: Click here to enter a date.
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 4 of 8
At Government Facility
Verification (Date and result):
Material at Government Facility Disposition
Scrap Vendor Return
No. RMA:
Other (Explain)
Material in Transit
Verification (Date and result):
At Supplier’s Facility
Total Number of parts sorted:
Percentage defective:
Total Number of defective parts:
What is the identification mark to signify?
4. Root Cause Analysis Use the “5 Why’s Analysis” technique to determine the most basic cause that resulted in a nonconformity that can be reasonably identified, fixed, or eliminated through process improvement.
Why did the failure occur?
1st Cause 2nd Cause 3rd Cause
1. Why?
2. Why?
3. Why?
4. Why?
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 5 of 8
5. Why?
Why was the failure not detected?
1st Cause 2nd Cause 3rd Cause
1. Why?
2. Why?
3. Why?
4. Why?
5. Why?
Verification of Effectiveness Explain in detail what actions were taken to verify that the root cause was found and effective.
5. Identify Solutions Solutions that address and correct the root cause. Solutions determined to be the best of all alternatives. Document and verify the permanent Corrective Action in the Action Item Table Applicable to occurrence of failure Actions Date Assignee Click here to enter a date.
Click here to enter a date.
Click here to enter a date.
How did you validate that the action/improvement measure eliminated the non conformance?
Actions Date Assignee Click here to enter a date.
Click here to enter a date.
Click here to enter a date.
Applicable to non-detection of failure Actions Date Assignee Click here to enter a date.
Click here to enter a date.
Click here to enter a date.
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 6 of 8
6. Validation Implement and validate to ensure that corrective action does “what it is suppose to do.” Detect undesirable side effect. Document this on the action Item Table. Return to root cause analysis, if necessary Evidence:
7. Prevention (Design/Information System Review) Determine what improvements in the systems and processes would prevent problem from recurring. Ensure that corrective action remains in place and are successful.
Were Pokes-Yokes (Error Proofing) Implemented because of this failure?
Yes (Describe the operation): No (Why not?):
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 7 of 8
7B. Standardization and Control:
Check if Applicable
Document Assignee Completion What Changed?
Planned Actual
Control Plan
FMEA
Flow Process Diagram
Visual Aid
Operation Standards
Manufacturing Set-up Sheet
Manufacturing Check Sheet
Process Work Instructions
QA Inspection Forms
Preventive Maintenance Plan
Job Certifications/ Recertification requirement
Other
8B. Attach any additional information to end of this report.
Submitted By:
Signature/Title:
X______________________________
Effect Date: Click here to enter a date. Date Submitted: Click here to enter a date.
Government Status:
Accepted
Rejected
Government Signature/Title:
X____________________________
Date: Click here to enter a date..
8B. Defense Contract Management Agency.
Reviewed By:
Signature/Title:
X______________________________
Effect Date: Click here to enter a date. Date Submitted: Click here to enter a date.
DCMA Status:
Accepted
Rejected
DCMA Signature/Title:
X____________________________
Date: Click here to enter a date.
PM SPE QA Form 3, August 2014 Page 8 of 8
Action Item Table
Action Implement and Verify Actions
Action Number
Fault/item Containment/Corrective Action
Verify How Verified
Action Assignee Planned Actual Status
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .