AQAP 2070 Edition 2 (Draft) • Andy Oldershaw
This session is intended to: Brief you on the AQAP 2070 Edition 2 Draft 3 including: • Why the Revision was undertaken • How the Revision was undertaken • What is the same • What has changed • What is left to do Then take you through the process stages and introduce the forms.
Why the Revision was undertaken The consultation process conducted in 2006 resulted in 300+ comments from stakeholders on AQAP 2070 Edition 1.
What did you tell us? The process is not applied consistently across all participating nations Process Discipline is lacking/process needs revision More flexibility is required Communication can be improved especially relating to risk and product information AQAP 2070 is guidance opposed to must/shall The document is too long
How the Revision was undertaken An Action Team was formed Under NATO AC/327 WG2 on Quality 8 Nations: CZE, DEU, FRA, GBR, ITA, NLD, TUR & USA 7 Meetings over the last 18 months with Quarterly Reports, Discussions, Recommendations & Approvals at NATO AC/327 WG2 on Quality
Current Status of the Revision National Commenting (Six Weeks) started on Monday. Comments through your National Rep on WG2 Please. There will be another round of Nation Commenting on the revised draft followed by 6 weeks NATO Silence Silence is the Final Approval Procedure where the proposed final document is circulated, if no reservations or concerns are raised it will be approved. Planned For Late December 2008.
The Objective is to address the concerns raised during the HNC and National commenting (Concept) stage whilst maintaining the principles of the GQA process. The following remain unchanged: • The relationship to STANAG 4107 • The objectives of GQA • Freedom for National Practice (outcomes are a constraint) • The basic process elements • The supporting processes
Changes: • AQAP 2070 has been restructured into a functional flow taking the user from risk assessment to closure. • Risk Upfront decision gate for GQA delegation • The essential aspects of the process have been identified as instructions (Under the Coverage of STANAG 4107) • Forms have been rationalised, the existing RGQA has been functionally separated into 4 forms: Risk, Request, Acceptance and Closure. • Measurement Analysis and Improvement (Feedback) • Supporting Processes in one place • Document reduced by 50%
What does it look like? Instruction Guidance
The 6 Stage GQA Process • Risk Identification, Assessment & Communication • GQA Request • GQA Response • GQA Planning • GQA Performance • GQA Closure
The Forms Risk Identification, Assessment and Communication Form (RIAC) – Compulsory Request for Government Quality Assurance (RGQA) - Compulsory Request for Government Quality Assurance Response Form (RGQAR) - Compulsory Government Quality Assurance Closure Report (GQACR) - Compulsory Delegation Feedback Form (DFB) Example of Suitable Certificate of Conformity (CoC) Example of Suitable Form for Application of Deviation Permit / Concession Example GQA Plan
This is the Decision gate for whether GQA will be requested it has: Instruction and Guidance (Sections 5 & 6) The Risk Identification, Assessment & Communication Form (RIAC) is provided to communicate Risk in a standard way. Annex C is provided to guide users through the completion of the form and; how Risk information can be used to focus GQA plan.
You told us that Risk was not being communicated consistently and we were still tasking! • The components of Risk are outlined in line with the international standards: • Risk statement • What might go wrong? • Main causes related to the relevant QMS processes • Why might things go wrong? • Risk Index (2 Factors) • Risk Impact Where Delegator has a better insight • Assessed: 1 “low” or 4 “Medium” or 9 “high” • Risk Likelihood Where Delegatee has a better insight • Assessed: 1 “low” or 4 “Medium” or 9 “high”
The following slides are accompanied by actual quotes from the company executives
… extolling the benefits of cutting quality assurance and inspection costs,
… the project successfully rejected the established constricting and negative influences of prescriptive engineering..
… onerous quality requirements, and outdated concepts of inspection and client control.
Elimination of these unnecessary straitjackets has empowered the project's suppliers and contractors to propose highly economical solutions ...
… with the win-win bonus of enhanced profitability margins for themselves.
Risk form: Designed to communicate the necessary information. If you fill in the boxes you will have followed the process. This Risk form (RIAC) is initiated by the Delegator and is then used to communicate Risk information, as it changes, throughout the process. We’ll visit the RIAC as this briefing moves through the process.
DQP/SQ n° 21042008 0 21/04/2008 RIAC DQP/SQ n° 214042008 0 14/04/2008 Insufficient strength of the welded joints Delegator What might go wrong with my contractual requirements?
Why might the contractual requirements of this technical process go wrong? DQP/SQ n° 21042008 0 21/04/2008 RIAC DQP/SQ n° 214042008 0 14/04/2008 Insufficient strength of the welded joints Uncontrolled supply of raw material (AQAP 2110 and ISO 7.4) ; new welding process requiring special competences (AQAP 2110 and ISO 6.2 & 7.5)
DQP/SQ n° 21042008 0 21/04/2008 RIAC DQP/SQ n° 214042008 0 14/04/2008 Impact assessment Delegator selects 1, 4 or 9 Insufficient strength of the welded joints Uncontrolled supply of raw material (AQAP 2110 and ISO 7.4) ; new welding process requiring special competences (AQAP 2110 and ISO 6.2 & 7.5) 9
Likelihood assessment Delegator selects 1, 4 or 9 DQP/SQ n° 21042008 0 21/04/2008 RIAC DQP/SQ n° 214042008 0 14/04/2008 Insufficient strength of the welded joints Uncontrolled supply of raw material (AQAP 2110 and ISO 7.4) ; new welding process requiring special competences (AQAP 2110 and ISO 6.2 & 7.5) 9 9
DQP/SQ n° 21042008 0 21/04/2008 RIAC DQP/SQ n° 214042008 0 14/04/2008 Insufficient strength of the welded joints Uncontrolled supply of raw material (AQAP 2110 and ISO 7.4) ; new welding process requiring special competences (AQAP 2110 and ISO 6.2 & 7.5) 9 9 81
Para 5.5 Delegation Determination • The Delegator shall consider whether: • The risk can be adequately monitored or mitigated at delivery of the supplies to the Acquirer and; if the capability to do so is available, • The magnitude of the identified risk warrant requesting GQA, • GQA can influence supplier’s performance associated with the risk and potential risk causes. • Note: GQA can not influence the impact of a risk, only the likelihood of its occurrence. • Para 5.5.1 Contractual Conditions • The contract or intended contract shall contain appropriate contractual conditions, reference STANAG 4107.
Can the risk be adequately monitored or mitigated at delivery of the supplies to the Acquirer and; is the capability to do so available?
Does the magnitude of the identified risk warrant requesting GQA? Can GQA influence supplier’s performance associated with the risk and potential risk causes? Note: GQA can not influence the impact of a risk, only the likelihood of its occurrence.
Does the contract or intended contract contain appropriate contractual conditions, reference STANAG 4107 e.g. AQAP 2110.
Once you have decided GQA is necessary complete the Request Form and ensure that the Delegatee has the information which they need to determine whether they can help: The Request for GQA Form (RGQA) is provided to communicate GQA details and specific requirements. The Delegator starts the Risk communication
Request for GQA form (RGQA) • RGQA form has not been changed in principle • Improved Communication by separating the Risk information from the RGQA form • The Delegator now provides two forms: • RGQA form which is based on the current one and provides GQA details, specific requirements and contract/product descriptions • Risk form which provides the risk information • The Delegator completes the two forms and sends them to the Delegatee to request GQA
New/clarified specific requirements considered on the form: • Facility Wide Delegation • Considers Deviation Permits and Concessions (DP/C) • System approach • Case by case approach: • Considers the provision of QDRs issued to the Supplier or Subcontractor
Facility Wide Delegation Authorises the Delegatee to perform GQA with similar risks on a facility wide approach across all Delegators and Delegations.
Tick this box if Delegatee is authorised to perform GQA on an Facility Wide Approach
Deviation Permits and Concessions (DP/C) System approach: • Should be the preferred method under normal conditions • GQAR will audit or review the supplier’s processing and controlling of DP/C Case by case approach: • Is considered appropriate where the Supplier’s process is a high risk • GQAR reviews the supplier’s application for DP/C and will concur or non-concur with the application