Aviation

Source Approval 

and 

Management

Handbook

16 March 2011

NAVAIR Public Release 11-514

Distribution Statement A – Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

CHANGE RECORD

Change 

Number Section Page Description Date
16 March 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 General Information................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Types of Sources Considered for Approval................................................. 1-2

1.2 CSIs from Unapproved Sources in Existing Inventory ................................ 1-4

1.3. Other Services’ Approved Sources (Source Reciprocity)............................ 1-5

1.4. Sources Identified on Control Drawings................................................... 1-5

1.5. Historical Sources of Supply.................................................................... 1-6

1.6. Local Purchase and Repair...................................................................... 1-7

1.7. Service Depots and Other Government Facilities ...................................... 1-7

1.8. Sources of Surplus Materials................................................................... 1-8

1.9. Reverse Engineering and Reengineering.................................................. 1-9

1.10. Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Source of Supply............................1-10

Chapter 2 Procuring Activity Responsibilities in Source Management ....... 2-1

Chapter 3 Source Approval Requests (SAR)................................................ 3-1

3.1. SAR Risk Management ........................................................................... 3-1

3.2. SAR Development and Contents ............................................................. 3-2

3.3. Integrated Materiel Manager (IMM) Responsibilities ................................. 3-3

3.4. SAR Review........................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.1. Cognizant Service ESA Responsibilities .............................................. 3-4

3.5. Technical Review ................................................................................... 3-4

3.5.1. Engineering Review ......................................................................... 3-5

3.5.2. Manufacturing, Repair, Overhaul, Maintenance and Modification (ROMM) 

Review ....................................................................................................... 3-8

3.5.3. Quality Assurance Review ...............................................................3-12

3.6. SAR Disposition ....................................................................................3-15

3.7. Government Quality Assurance and Test Requirements...........................3-15

Chapter 4 Reverse Engineering Process...................................................... 4-1

Chapter 5 Alternate Source Site Survey ...................................................... 5-1

5.1. Site Survey Checklist.............................................................................. 5-2

5.2. Pre-Award Surveys................................................................................. 5-3

5.3. Repository for Past Site Surveys.............................................................. 5-3

Chapter 6 Source Validation and Disqualification....................................... 6-1

6.1. Revalidation of Sources of Supply ........................................................... 6-1

6.2. Re-qualification of Sources of Supply ...................................................... 6-2

6.3. Notification of Removal as Approved Source............................................ 6-2

Chapter 7 Government Manufacture of Critical Items (CI) ........................ 7-1

7.1. Government Manufacturing Authorization via Alternate Source Qualification7-1

7.2. Government Manufacturing via One-Time Manufacturing Authorization ..... 7-2

7.2.1 CSI .................................................................................................. 7-2

7.2.2 CI, other than CSI ............................................................................ 7-3
16 March 2011

APPENDICES

Appendix I Acronyms .........................................................................................I-1

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A Source Approval Request Package Contents Guide ................................ A-1

Exhibit B Example of SAR Review Checklist......................................................... B-1

Exhibit C Site Survey Checklist ........................................................................... C-1

Exhibit D Checklist for Surplus Procurements ......................................................D-1

TABLES

Table 4.1 Reverse Engineering Process..................................................................... 4-1
16 March 2011

1-1

CHAPTER 1

General Information

The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA, Public Law 98-369 and 10 United States (US) 

Code 2304), the Encouragement of New Competitors (10 USC 2319), the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 (Competition Requirements), and Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 206 (Competition Requirements) 

prescribes the policy and procedures that are to be used to promote and provide for full 

and open competition, with some exceptions. As defined in FAR 2.101, “full and open 

competition, when used with respect to a contract action, means that all responsible 

sources are permitted to compete. 

Public Law 108-136 amended 10 U.S.C. 2319 to establish that the head of a design 

control activity (DCA), rather than the contracting officer, is responsible for determining 

that Critical Safety Items (CSIs) or prospective CSI suppliers meet or could meet 

requirements. It also directed that the Secretary of Defense establish regulations 

stating that the head of a design control activity for aviation CSIs establish processes to 

identify and manage the procurement and Repair, Overhaul, Modification, and 

Maintenance (ROMM) of aviation CSIs, that the head of contracting activities enter into 

a contract only with sources approved by the design control activity, and that CSIs be 

accepted only if they meet all technical requirements established by the design control 

activity. In this Handbook the term ‘Engineering Support Activity’ (ESA) is synonymous 

with the term DCA. 

FAR Part 9 (Contractor Qualifications) and DFARS Part 209.270 (Aviation Critical Safety 

Items) prescribe policies, standards, and procedures on contractor qualifications and 

Aviation Critical Safety Items.. The processes described in this Handbook focus on 

Source Approvals other than Qualified Products List (QPL) items and are intended to 

ensure that suppliers are capable of consistently producing and/or providing high 

quality, conforming items that meet design and manufacturing or ROMM requirements.

To implement the aviation CSI Public Law, the military Services and defense agencies 

worked together to develop an instruction under the auspices of the Joint Aeronautical 

Logistics Commanders, now called the Joint Aeronautical Commanders’ Group (JACG). 

The JACG is an organization comprising the highest levels of leadership from each 

Service’s aviation acquisition community and representatives from Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and 

Department of Homeland Security. The CSI Instruction was issued by all Services and 

defense agencies under their respective regulation structures. Specifically, it was issued 

as SECNAVINST 4140.2, AFI 20-106, DA Pam 95-9, DLAI 3200.4, and DCMA INST CSI 

(AV) “Management of Aviation Critical Safety Items”, and is hereafter referred to as the 
16 March 2011

1-2

Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI Instruction. To supplement the instruction and 

provide implementing guidance regarding management and approval of sources for 

aviation parts, the JACG also sponsored the development of the Aviation Critical Safety 

Item Management Handbook as well as this Sourcing Handbook. Additionally, a set of 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), including some which refer to sourcing, can be 

found in Appendix III of the JACG Aviation CSI Handbook.

For the purpose of this handbook, the Aircraft Airworthiness Authority for each 

respective service is the Naval Air Systems Command, Assistant Commander for 

Research and Engineering (AIR-4.0) for the Navy; US Army Aviation and Missile 

Command (RDMR-AE) for the Army; and the Technical Airworthiness Authority for the 

Air Force. The term Aircraft Airworthiness Authority is synonymous with DCA and ESA

for the Army and Navy. For the Air Force, the terms DCA and ESA are synonymous

with the Designated Air Force Single Manager for a Weapon System.

1.1 Types of Sources Considered for Approval

Unless otherwise established by the cognizant Service ESA, only sources in the 

categories listed below are to be considered for approval:

• System or subsystem prime contractor. System or subsystem prime 

contractors are approved sources for the items in their systems or 

subsystems, unless specifically disapproved by the cognizant Service ESA;

• Actual manufacturer (i.e., Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)) that 

supplies items to the prime Contractor where the cognizant Service ESA 

determines the prime Contractor provides no “value added” to the item. 

Section 4.7 of the JACG Aviation CSI Handbook provides specific guidance for 

evaluating OEM’s processes. The Service and DLA logistics organizations and 

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) assist the cognizant Service 

ESA in assessing “value added”; 

• Fully-licensed manufacturers of the prime contractor or of the OEM that 

provide substantiation of their licensing arrangement, as validated by and 

acceptable to the cognizant Service ESA; 

• Fully-licensed repair/overhaul facilities of the prime contractor or of the OEM 

that provide substantiation of their repair/overhaul arrangement with the 

prime contractor, as validated by and acceptable to the cognizant Service 

ESA; 

• Distributors approved by the cognizant Service ESA who provide traceability 

that the items they are supplying were produced by the system prime 

contractor, OEM, or a cognizant Service ESA-approved alternative source 

according to technical and quality requirements and are unchanged in any 

way. Approval of a distributor is based upon the traceability to an approved 

source and approval of the distributor will be removed from the approved 
16 March 2011

1-3

source list if the distributor changes their proposed source after approval. 

Additional guidance and a possible source of distributor accreditation criteria 

may be found in FAA Advisory Circular 00-56A, Voluntary Industry Distributor 

Accreditation Program, which describes a voluntary system for the 

accreditation of civil aircraft parts distributors for parts and products installed 

on type-certificated products. Also, ASA-100, Quality System Standard, is a 

commercially available dealer/distributor approval standard which the FAA 

determined meets and/or exceeds their accreditation criteria; and SAE 

AS9120, Quality Management Systems - Aerospace Requirements for Stocklist 

Distributors, a commercially available standard which includes ISO 9001:2000 

quality management system requirements and specifies additional 

requirements for a quality management system for the aerospace industry 

and is applicable to stocklist distributors;

• Sources identified on a Qualified Products List (QPL), Qualified Products 

Database (QPD) or Critical Item Procurement Requirements Document 

(CIPRD) where the cognizant Service ESA coordinated on the approval. 

- QPLs for Federal and Defense specifications and standards can be 

accessed at http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/fsc_quicksearch.cfm. 

Type “QPD” in the title box and select the Federal Supply Classification 

(FSC) for the item of interest from the dropdown list. From the 

resulting list of QPLs, select a specific QPL for additional information. 

In the resulting “Overview” block, click on the “Qualification” link for a 

list of applicable part numbers (P/Ns) and national stock numbers 

(NSNs) (if applicable). Select a P/N and the QPL sources for that P/N 

will be displayed. 

- Contact your DLA engineering support (Form 339) focal point for 

access to CIPRDs.

• Sources identified on source controlled drawings are considered approved, 

unless determined by the cognizant Service ESA to be otherwise. See 

Service-specific policy/guidance for further details on how sources listed on 

source controlled drawings should be managed. (See Section 1.4, below, for 

further discussion of sources identified on control drawings.) Any additional 

quality assurance provisions established by the ESA for these sources or 

situations must be incorporated in contracts;

• Sources controlled within ESA approved Qualified Supplier List programs for 

standard parts identified as Critical Application Items (CAIs) or Non-Critical, 

when approved by the ESA. These programs shall, as a minimum, take into 

account the requirements of Section 7.4 of the JACG CSI HB to insure that 

hardware complies with technical requirements. This includes the areas of 

Quality Management, Document Control, Purchasing Control, Traceability, Lot 

Control, Manufacturing Process Control, Inspection, Test Control, Calibration 

Control, Corrective Actions & Control of Non-conforming Material, 

Storage/Packaging/Shipping, Internal Audits, Personnel Training/Qualification, 

Records Control & Retention, and Product Control. Qualified Supplier List 
16 March 2011

1-4

programs will define a list of approved vendors, both manufacturers and their 

authorized distributors, who will be the only qualified suppliers of 

competitively procured CSI hardware. Only material manufactured by 

qualified manufacturers will be acceptable from qualified distributors. 

Qualified Supplier List programs for standard hardware shall require the 

review of a manufacturer’s and/or authorized distributor’s quality system, onsite surveys and regular and recurring audits to verify day-to-day 

implementation of the quality system, and evaluation of test results for CSI 

hardware.

• Alternate sources (which may include FAA certificate/approval holders or 

organic government facilities) for CSIs or CAIs approved by the cognizant 

Service ESA or its delegate. (See the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI 

Instruction for CSI and CAI definitions.) Non-critical items may require 

cognizant Service ESA approval according to Service-specific policy. This 

category includes distributors who are making changes (such as adding Item 

Unique Identifications) to new items (used or surplus items are not 

considered within this category). Source Approval Request (SAR) packages 

from these prospective distributors must obtain the unmodified parts from 

approved sources and/or provide all SAR package documentation required to 

obtain approval for that source, in addition to the documentation required for 

the modifications they are performing; and

• Sources proposing to supply items based upon reverse engineering, Parts 

Manufacturer Approval (PMA) test and computation, or similar techniques 

must be approved by the cognizant Service ESA regardless of criticality to 

ensure that the alternate proposed design is validated. Alternate items SAR 

process is discussed more in Chapter 3. 

Note: Sources proposing Reengineering efforts are not applicable to this 

document. See Section 1.9. 

1.2 CSIs from Unapproved Sources in Existing Inventory

On occasion, CSIs from an unapproved source are found in the supply system. In this 

case, the Integrated Materiel Manager (IMM) will freeze stock and notify the cognizant 

Service ESA(s). The cognizant Service ESA(s) will define testing requirements to verify 

that the product conforms to technical requirements and will review and approve the 

results. If a critical characteristic exists that cannot be tested in the item or assembly’s 

final form, the item is unapproved (e.g., Non-destructive test (NDT) on bare metal but 

the item is coated or painted), unless otherwise approved by the ESA for use. For 

unapproved CSIs that have already been installed, operational performance history 

should be considered in determining whether or not to allow continued use of the 

installed items. Testing requirements for CSIs from unapproved sources are addressed 

in Section 4.9.3. of the JACG Aviation CSI Handbook. 
16 March 2011

1-5

1.3. Other Services’ Approved Sources (Source Reciprocity)

In addition to promoting commonality and consistency in procedures, terminology, and 

standards, SAR policies and guidance also present opportunities for efficiency and cost 

effectiveness across the military Services. For example, the Multi-Service/Defense 

Agency CSI Instruction encourages each Service to recognize sources of common use 

CSIs that have been approved by other Services, particularly where approval 

procedures are comparable and the basis for initial approval is available to other 

Services. This is known as source reciprocity. Sources approved by one Service for 

items that are common use items should be recognized across all Services provided:

• the defined item requirements meet the most stringent requirements required 

of the item by any Service (as determined by the cognizant Service ESA for 

assigned items);

• the source approval requirements of the original approving Service were 

comparable to or greater than those required by each Service;

• each cognizant Service ESA had an opportunity to review all information 

supporting the request for approval and the determination that the source 

was acceptable and each cognizant Service ESA concurred with the 

conclusions; and

• there is compliance with the procedural requirements of the MultiService/Defense Agency CSI Instruction.

Other Service ESAs should consider waiving First Article Test (FAT) or Product 

Verification Audit (PVA) requirements for the same item from the same product/ROMM 

supplier if the supplier meets source reciprocity requirements (refer to Section E.2.f of 

the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI Instruction) or if FAT or PVA was performed and 

found to be acceptable within the past 3 years by the cognizant Service ESA. 

1.4. Sources Identified on Control Drawings

Control drawings are used to establish an item’s technical design and performance 

requirements and to identify suppliers that were determined to be capable of meeting 

these requirements at the time the drawing was released or updated. There are 

several types of Control Drawings, including Source Control Drawings, Vendor Item 

Drawings (also called Vendor Item Control Drawings), Specification Control Drawing, 

and similar variations. Control drawings can be used as a basis to develop, find, or help 

qualify new sources when appropriate. 

Suppliers listed on source control drawings were considered capable of manufacturing 

the item at the time the drawings were released and are generally considered 
16 March 2011

1-6

approved, unless the cognizant Service ESA determines otherwise. Refer to Servicespecific guidance on how source controlled drawing suppliers are to be managed. 

However, suppliers listed on vendor item drawings and specification control drawings 

are suggested sources of supply (reference ASME Y14.24, Types and Applications of 

Engineering Drawings) and therefore need to submit a SAR package. Unfortunately, 

the terminology is not always used consistently across industry. 

Sources listed on control drawings may not be current or continue to be valid. 

Drawings are not always updated simply to add, modify, or remove sources if there is 

no technical change to the item itself. As a consequence, suppliers listed on control

drawings may no longer be in business, may no longer have an interest in or capability 

to produce the product, may have experienced quality problems, may not be cost 

effective, or may not be able to meet schedule timelines. Therefore, procuring activities

should validate that:

• available source control drawings are the most current version;

• listed suppliers are still in business and will produce the item;

• the system prime contractor, major subsystem contractor, or OEM for the 

item still approve the source(s); and

• all system prime contractor, major subsystem contractor, or OEM approved 

sources are listed on the source control drawing.

If the procuring activity discovers that there is a system prime contractor, major 

subsystem contractor, or OEM approved source(s) other than those on the source 

control drawing, then ESA should evaluate for possible approval.. If sources other than 

those listed on the source control drawing are approved, then an Engineering Change 

Notice (ECN) or Engineering Order (EO) must be created for the drawing in question to 

identify the new source for the source control drawing. Then the item’s Acquisition 

Method Suffix Code (AMSC) remains “B.” This code denotes that acquisition of the part 

is restricted to the OEM and/or source(s) specified on the ‘source control,’ altered item,’ 

or ‘selected item’ drawings. (See DFARS PGI 217.7506 SPARE PARTS BREAKOUT 

PROGRAM for proper code to apply and Section 3.5.1 for additional information 

regarding source controlled drawings.) If sources other than those listed on the control 

drawing need to be found or approved, proprietary information contained on the 

drawing will not be released. The ESA should additionally consider whether any 

additional technical data is required to approve a new supplier for a source controlled 

item.

1.5. Historical Sources of Supply 

When a legacy item is determined to be CSI, historical sources of supply (i.e., sources 

that supplied the item prior to the CSI designation) of that item may be affected if the 

item had been previously purchased and is currently in the supply system. Before 

designating a legacy item as CSI, the cognizant Service ESA should determine whether 
16 March 2011

1-7

these historical sources are to be retained. For CAIs, a similar approach may be applied 

on a case by case basis.

If the legacy item is a common use item, the disposition of historical sources should be 

coordinated among the user communities via the Common Use Item Coordination 

Process described in Section 2.5.2 of the JACG Aviation CSI Handbook. If proper 

coordination is not accomplished in advance, the cognizant IMM will typically freeze 

stock from unapproved sources. In cases where materiel from unapproved sources of 

supply is in the supply system, a course of action will be jointly developed by the IMM, 

cognizant life cycle managers, and cognizant Service ESAs in order to maintain 

airworthiness while minimizing operational impacts. 

When reviewing historical sources for a newly identified common use CSI, the cognizant 

Service ESA should identify whether other Services may have approved sources for the 

CSI and consider implementing source reciprocity discussed in Section 1.3, above. If 

the criteria for source reciprocity are satisfied, the cognizant Service ESA should 

consider waiving full source approval requirements. This guidance is based on the 

growing degree of similarity among the Services' source approval processes promoted 

by the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI Instruction, Section E.2.a., and this Handbook. 

If the source meets the reciprocity requirements in Section 1.3 and no additional 

technical requirements are required, also consider waiving FAT or PVA requirements. 

1.6. Local Purchase and Repair 

A local purchase is the direct purchase of an item covered by the Department of 

Defense (DoD) Coordinated Acquisition Program (DFARS 208.70) by other than the 

organization assigned Coordinated Acquisition contracting responsibility or IMM 

responsibility. A local repair is a repair performed by a maintenance level not normally 

authorized to perform the repairs for an item. Local purchase or repair of CSIs is only 

authorized if justified by unusual and compelling urgency (as described in FAR, Part 

6.302-2, Unusual and Compelling Urgency, and DFARS Part 208.7003-1, Assignment 

Under the IMM) and when approved by the cognizant Service ESA. When any Federal 

Logistics Information System (FLIS) cataloged items are procured locally, the buying 

activity must notify the cognizant IMM and comply with all ESA-approved CSI 

procurement requirements, including use of approved sources and restrictions on use of 

surplus material. Facilities performing local repairs must notify the cognizant IMM and 

comply with all ESA-approved CSI repair requirements. 

1.7. Service Depots and Other Government Facilities

Service depots and other Government facilities are authorized to manufacture CSIs 

under certain conditions. Specifically, they may be sources for routine, repetitive, 
16 March 2011

1-8

production lot manufacturing of CSIs only if the cognizant Service ESA confirms they 

meet all alternate source qualification requirements.

Depots and other Government facilities are also authorized to manufacture CSIs in 

limited quantities (one or a few) on a “one-time basis” without undergoing the full 

alternate source qualification process only if certain conditions and criteria specified in 

paragraph E.2.j.(2) of the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI Instruction have been 

satisfied.

Government manufacture of CSIs on a one-time manufacture basis and via alternate 

source qualification is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

1.8. Sources of Surplus Materials

In some instances, purchase of surplus material may be the most efficient and cost 

effective means to meet a requirement for an item. As used here, the term surplus 

material refers to items originally purchased and accepted by the Government and 

subsequently sold or disposed of by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service 

(DRMS).

Note: Use of surplus parts for routine procurement increases the risk of receiving 

counterfeit parts.

When offers for surplus CSI material are received, the cognizant Service ESA will 

evaluate the offer and determine if the material is acceptable for use. Service-specific 

direction and guidance on surplus offers should be applied. Unless otherwise specified 

by cognizant Service ESA, the following factors must be considered:

• Origin of the materials 

- the proposed item was originally manufactured by an approved source at 

the time of manufacture and the manufacturer’s approval for that item 

has not subsequently been revoked

• Traceability, including manufacturing records

• Condition/Configuration 

- the item is the correct revision 

- the item is unused in any way 

- the item is not repaired, recycled, remanufactured, reconditioned, or has 

not been previously dispositioned as nonconforming by the system or 

subsystem prime contractor, OEM, other supplier or the Government

- the item fully conforms to all critical characteristics as identified in item 

technical data requirements, contract, or other cognizant Service ESA 

instruction 
16 March 2011

1-9

- the remaining shelf life or other time critical aspects of the item are 

acceptable to the cognizant Service ESA

• Cost of test & evaluation to determine acceptability

- the test & evaluation cost should be provided to the IMM for additional 

evaluation to determine acceptability 

• Availability of technical data and testing facilities

See Exhibit D for a checklist for surplus procurements and Exhibit G of the JACG

Aviation CSI Handbook for an example contract clause for surplus procurements.

For CAI items, the IMM may review an offer for unused material that DLA has not 

rejected after review where the item:

• is traceable to an original government contract number, 

• the parts are in the original unopened packaging, 

• the items were manufactured to the current configuration of tech data, 

• there is no history of Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs), and 

• the items do not have a current demilitarization (DEMIL) code of C, D, E, F and 

G. 

However, if the above conditions are not all met, then the ESA must review the surplus 

offer. For non-critical items, the IMM will request and validate surplus documentation 

as applicable to the requiring Service or Agency procedures.

1.9. Reverse Engineering and Reengineering 

1.9.1 Reverse engineering is the process of replicating an item in all respects (i.e., 

functionally, dimensionally, materials, and processes) by physically examining and 

measuring existing items to develop the technical data (physical and material 

characteristics) required for competitive procurement. Normally, as part of a 

product development plan, reverse engineering will not be cost effective unless the 

items under consideration are urgently needed to maintain operational readiness, 

are of a high dollar value, or are procured in large quantities. The decision to pursue 

a government funded reverse engineering effort must be authorized by both the 

head of the contracting activity and the cognizant Service ESA, following the 

direction issued by DFARS, Part 217.7504, Acquisition of Parts When Data Is Not 

Available. Coordination among the Services is required when reverse engineering 

common use items. (See Chapter 4 of this Handbook and Section E.3.h of the MultiService/Defense Agency CSI Instruction for further discussion of reverse engineering 

requirements.) 

Reverse engineering may be considered if the following criteria are met:

• There is an overwhelming readiness need and all other methods of support 

are unavailable or prohibitive,
16 March 2011

1-10

• a Business Case Analysis demonstrates cost savings commensurate with 

potential safety or performance risk, 

• the government must be in possession of sufficient data or be provided 

sufficient data to perform a risk assessment or assess the reverse engineered 

design. 

A review by the appropriate engineering personnel is required when considering 

reverse engineering. Representatives from the impacted program office and/or the 

procuring activity may also be necessary for configuration and funding concerns 

when conducting the above analysis. 

1.9.2 Reengineering is the process of examining and measuring an existing item to 

develop a new design that is identical in fit, but allows the form to be modified to 

result in equivalent or improved overall functionality of the item or other quantifiable 

benefit (e.g., reduced cost, ease of maintenance, improved supply base, etc.) 

Because reengineering is the process of establishing a new design, it does not fall 

under the source approval process. The new design should instead be qualified 

under the engineering change process. Due to the inherent risk associated with the 

reengineering process and the safety concerns related to CSI components, 

reengineering should be entered into as a last resort.

 

1.10. Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Source of Supply

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.303(a) requires that any person 

producing replacement parts for sale for installation on a type-certified product must 

have a PMA. A PMA is a combined design and production approval for replacement 

parts for FAA certified aircraft.

PMA parts cannot be automatically approved for use in military applications because the 

Military Services’ operational environment, maintenance procedures, flight envelope, 

and similar factors may be different from those for the same parts in the civil sector. 

Therefore, source approval requirements apply to components produced by FAA PMA 

holders for the government. 

The FAA approves PMA sources on the basis of one of three principles: 

• Identicality with a Licensing Agreement - The license agreement is proof that 

the design of the part is the same in every respect as a part approved under 

a type certificate.

• Identicality without a Licensing Agreement - The source must prove that their 

part and the data used to manufacture the part are identical to the OEMs 

part. The source proves identicality by providing the OEMs data, which 

verifies identicality in dimensional and material characteristics, special 
16 March 2011

1-11

processes and coatings, and any other test and acceptance criteria.

Identicality to another PMA is not allowed per FAA regulations.

• Test and Computation - The source must demonstrate that the functional 

design of the proposed part is at least equal to that of the original type 

certified (TC), supplemental type certificate (STC), or technical standard order 

(TSO) approved original part. The source provides to the FAA part design 

data, including materials, processes, test specifications, system compatibility, 

maintenance instructions, and part interchangeability, as well as a test and 

substantiation plan to show part airworthiness. More Service/Agency CSI 

reverse engineering considerations are provided in Chapter 4.

See the FAA Order 8110.42C, Parts Manufacturing Approval Procedures dated 23 June

2008 for more FAA PMA information. 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/D1D550BBC2C82D

D386257472005724EF?OpenDocument

Approved PMA parts may require new part numbers regardless of how the PMA part 

was developed because a vendor will not be asking to produce a part to the OEM 

blueprints, but rather to their own manufacturing data. This will not apply to parts 

produced under license agreement as these parts are identical to the OEM blueprints. 

However, parts produced without license agreements or developed through reverse 

engineering may have their own unique part number, (PMA parts may use the same 

part number with the OEM permission) requiring unique configuration control (though 

they can be linked under a single stock number). As creation of a unique part number 

will require cataloging to maintain configuration control, a cost analysis must be 

performed before technical evaluation of a PMA source is undertaken. Cost analysis 

must be performed between the IMM, procuring activity (if different), and the cognizant 

Service ESA before technical evaluation of a PMA source is undertaken to ensure all 

activities involving cost are considered.

While the PMA process is a FAA process, it may not be used as a sole basis for source 

approval for government used items not covered by a FAA Type Certificate. PMA 

holders requesting to be approved for non-type certified parts used by the government 

will need to apply for approval per the requirements of Exhibit A. 
16 March 2011

2-1

Chapter 2

Procuring Activity Responsibilities in Source Management

Procuring activities perform the following source management activities:

• Ensure that all contracts for CSIs are in compliance with all sections of this 

handbook as all CSIs require source approval unless the requirement is 

waived by the cognizant Service ESA. 

• Ensure contracts for items requiring source approval are awarded only to 

approved sources unless the requirement is waived by the cognizant Service 

ESA.

Note: Requirements on Active Solicitation. Due to time constraints and lead 

times involved, the Government cannot guarantee expedited processing of SARs 

submitted in response to a solicitation announcement in the Federal Business 

Opportunities (FedBizOpps). Once a solicitation appears in the FedBizOpps, 

there may not be enough time to process a SAR for the current solicitation. 

Pursuant to FAR 9.202(e), the contracting officer is not required to delay a 

proposed award to provide a potential offeror an opportunity to demonstrate its 

ability to meet the standards specified for qualification. However, the cognizant 

Service ESA must still review the package so that if approved, the source will be 

eligible for future contract awards.

There are items requiring source approval for which the Government does not 

own the technical data that specifies the manufacture or ROMM, or the data 

that the Government owns has not been maintained. Sources for these items 

must be limited to the prime, OEM, or an alternate supplier identified by the 

prime or OEM, as approved by the ESA. 

• Ensure contracts contain all technical and quality requirements stipulated by 

the cognizant Service ESA.

• Review quality performance history of CSI approved sources prior to award to 

identify indicators of potential problems needing investigating prior to 

contract award.

• Review quality history of CSI NSNs to identify indicators of potential technical 

documentation problems with the item.

• Ensure the supplier is not on the excluded parties list system 

(https://www.epls.gov/) or other internal problem-tracking system.
16 March 2011

3-1

Chapter 3

Source Approval Requests (SAR)

Source approval requirements and processes addressed in this Handbook are not 

intended to restrict competition, but rather to ensure that proposed sources are capable 

of consistently producing acceptable items while increasing competition for 

manufacturing source approved items in addition to ROMM of items. These processes 

are also used to qualify sources in cases where the pre-approved sources (e.g., the 

prime contractor and/or OEM) will no longer produce a quote.

A Source Approval Request (SAR) contains information about a prospective new 

supplier. A SAR package includes all the technical data needed to demonstrate that the 

prospective supplier can competently manufacture or perform ROMM of the item 

requiring source approval to the same level of quality or better than the system prime 

contractor, major subsystem contractor, or OEM.

Suppliers that have not been formally approved by a cognizant Service ESA to directly 

supply specific CSIs to the Government are required to submit SAR packages. These 

contractors are considered alternate sources. System prime contractors, major 

subsystem contractors, and OEMs are not required to submit SAR packages to the 

Government in order to qualify a prospective subcontractor, unless otherwise required 

by the ESA. 

3.1. SAR Risk Management

When the Government assumes responsibility for direct procurement of items requiring 

source approval and/or CSIs, from sources other than the prime contractor, the 

Government assumes certain risks. In effect, the Government is responsible for the 

risk, not the prime contractor.

Cognizant Service ESAs should analyze the technical risk of direct procurement from a 

source other than the prime contractor and determine/verify the qualification 

requirements and Quality Assurance (QA) requirements needed to reduce that risk to 

an acceptable level. (See the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI Instruction, Section 

E.2.a (7). Risk analysis includes but is not limited to assessment of the following 

elements:

• The criticality and complexity of the manufacturing, ROMM and inspection 

processes that are required to support production/repair of the item. Failure 

Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) data may aid in the 

determination of critical processes and characteristics, and the sensitivity of 

the processes to the techniques and skill level of manufacturing personnel;
16 March 2011

3-2

• The item’s critical characteristics, required QA controls, and qualification 

requirements;

• The design life limits and expected service life of the item;

• The quality history for the component;

• Prime contractor’s "value-added" in the manufacturing or ROMM process; 

(Value added is defined as any oversight, process, operation, or technical 

data provided by the prime contractor that would have to be replaced by the 

Government. Examples include: QA; supply of raw material and forgings; 

providing data not shown on component drawings such as machining, feed

rate and cutting speeds, machining impacts, casting/forging information, 

design life, etc.; Material Review Board (MRB) disposition; material and 

process specifications; special tooling and fixtures; master tooling calibration; 

and providing personnel at the subcontractor's facility to perform engineering 

and quality management services.);

• Availability of any special equipment, tooling, fixtures, and/or jigs; (This 

information may be obtained from the cognizant DCMA representative.);

• Review of upcoming design changes through Engineering Change Proposals 

(ECPs), changes in design, the component improvement program, and 

engineering development program.

3.2. SAR Development and Contents

A SAR should include all data required to manufacture or ROMM, and describe the item; 

indicate if the proposed source has ever (and if so, when they last) supplied the subject 

or similar item to the prime contractor, OEM, civil sector, civil agencies, foreign 

governments, or the DoD.

If the service or agency desires to target items with the largest potential for savings 

through competition, the procuring activity can develop a target list to determine where 

to focus the effort. If a Service or Agency decides to develop a target list, this does not 

preclude a potential source from submitting a SAR package for a particular item. A 

procuring activity can develop a target list of potential items for which establishment of

an alternate source(s) would be in the best interest of the government. This target list 

can be used to focus development of SAR packages to increase the number of sources 

for items where there is potential for benefit. 

The procuring activity informs all interested suppliers of basic qualification criteria by 

providing them with the requirements for source approval. Exhibit A provides the 

minimal contents for a SAR package as well as detailed guidance to contractors on how 

to assemble a SAR package that will satisfy the requirements for each Service/Defense 

Agency. In addition to these requirements, an individual Service or DLA may require 

additional content. The websites for this information are included in Exhibit B of the 

JACG Aviation CSI Handbook. Meetings with suppliers to answer their specific questions 
16 March 2011

3-3

relative to the approval process for alternate sources may also be conducted by the 

procuring activity. The individual Service or DLA should consider including DCMA as a 

source of information and data for the ESA decision process. SARs from potential 

sources (and DLA Form 339 requests when SARs are submitted to DLA) are routed to 

the cognizant Service ESA for review and disposition.

The cognizant Service ESA will consider all SARs for potential approval. Based upon 

individual Service procedures, the cognizant Service ESA may determine that certain 

sections of the SAR are not required for their review; however, legal precedents require 

that all SAR packages be processed consistently. Therefore, if a section is excluded, a 

statement as to why must be included within the SAR. A SAR for the manufacturing of 

an item is similar to a SAR for ROMM of an item; further detail is provided below in 

Section 3.5.2 below.

3.3. Integrated Materiel Manager (IMM) Responsibilities

The IMM is the activity or agency that has been assigned wholesale integrated materiel 

management responsibility for the DoD and participating Federal Agencies. Each 

Service/Defense Agency has multiple IMMs. The applicable IMM for a given part is 

identified by the Source of Supply (SOS) code recorded in the Federal Logistics 

Information System (FLIS).

• The IMM responsibilities include cataloging, requirements determination, 

procurement, distribution, overhaul, repair, and disposal of materiel. 

3.4. SAR Review

The cognizant Service ESA’s review of a SAR focuses on adequacy of technical data, 

proper identification of critical characteristics (if identified by the cognizant Service 

ESA), capabilities of manufacturing or ROMM process sources/sub-tier suppliers, proper 

definition of qualification requirements to ensure equivalent performance of items, 

identification of Quality Assurance requirements, and verification of 

Government/Contractor testing capabilities. The cognizant Service ESA will also assess 

the capability of the prospective source to manufacture or ROMM and deliver the item 

in accordance with technical requirements. As part of this process, the Service, DLA 

logistics organizations, and DCMA may provide assistance or information to the 

cognizant Service ESA in assessing the capabilities of the supplier in the manufacture or 

ROMM of items requiring source approval.
16 March 2011

3-4

3.4.1. Cognizant Service ESA Responsibilities

The cognizant Service ESA is responsible (unless otherwise stated in Service-specific

guidance) for receiving SARs, tracking and evaluating SARs for their activity, and 

returning the SARs to either the procuring activities or the supplier (as applicable), 

ensuring at all times that precautions are taken to prevent access by unauthorized 

personnel to any proprietary data in the packages. 

The cognizant Service ESA may require support from a variety of specialists, to include 

but not limited to quality assurance, reliability and maintainability, manufacturing and 

production, technical disciplines, logistics, and configuration management. The 

engineer reviews the SAR and any comments from assigned specialists and evaluates 

the engineering characteristics of the part, design change activity, field experience with 

the item, and the source’s quality assurance and manufacturing and/or ROMM history 

with the item. It is important to ensure that precautions are taken to prevent access by 

unauthorized personnel to any proprietary data within the SAR package. The engineer 

then reviews the available information, assesses the risks, and makes the approval or 

disapproval decision. Normally, the SAR review process must be accomplished within 

180 days, unless otherwise negotiated with the procuring activity or as documented in 

Service specific guidance. The cognizant Service ESA is responsible for the SAR review, 

considering the comments provided by any other reviewers, assessing the risks, and 

approving or disapproving the new source based on their technical justification. When 

a new source (for either manufacturing or ROMM) is approved, it is important that it be 

added to the Service’s listing of approved sources. 

In addition, the cognizant Service ESA is responsible for tailoring the Quality Assurance 

Provisions (QAP) to the specific requirements of the SAR item during the SAR review or 

at contract award. While QAPs and contract data requirements lists (CDRLs) can be 

tailored for each items requiring source approval, it is important that different suppliers 

of the same part follow the same QAPs and CDRLs. Refer to Service-specific guidance 

for a detailed definition of engineering responsibilities for SAR QAP and CDRL 

requirements. 

Contact your Service CSI point of contact (POC) (listed in Section 1.6 of the JACG

Aviation CSI Handbook) for information about your cognizant Service ESA focal point.

3.5. Technical Review

The objective of the technical review is to determine whether the proposing supplier 

has the capability to consistently produce the item to the required specifications, and to 

ensure that the available technical data is adequate to manufacture or ROMM the 

required item. (Note: If the technical data to be used are not owned by the 

Government, the prospective source must provide certification that authorizes use of 
16 March 2011

3-5

the proprietary data). The cognizant Service ESA determines and verifies the minimum 

qualification requirements and the QA requirements that proposing suppliers must meet 

in order to manufacture or ROMM a specific item for the DoD. Consideration should be 

given to contacting DCMA as a source of information concerning QA requirements 

based on current knowledge of the proposing supplier's capabilities. The approval 

decision should consider both supplier capability and risk. Supplier capability is 

evaluated based on the SAR review. Risk is evaluated utilizing Section 3.1 above.

The SAR technical review covers three broad functional areas: engineering, 

manufacturing/repair/overhaul processes, and quality assurance. The technical review

is the final decision point for determining whether a source can produce a conforming 

item requiring source approval from the available technical data. A checklist for use as 

a guide for the technical review of a SAR package is provided in Exhibit B.

3.5.1. Engineering Review

3.5.1.1 Drawings. Drawing reviews are conducted from a manufacturing or ROMM 

perspective to determine if the SAR contains data of sufficient quality to allow a 

competent supplier to manufacture or ROMM items that will be of equal or better 

quality to those previously procured. Often times, the government owns the data rights 

for drawings, and thus the drawings being used by the proposed supplier were provided 

by the procuring activity. To ensure that the data provided is satisfactory, the following 

sequential steps are performed by the cognizant Service ESA to review a drawing. 

3.5.1.1.1 Perform a top-down breakdown of the item to identify all required 

drawings, parts lists, specifications, etc. Note that each prime contractor or PMA 

holder will have unique drawing practices specific to their designs.

3.5.1.1.2 Determine that all sheets of each drawing are included and are current 

and legible.

3.5.1.1.3 Determine if all identified detail and subassembly drawings, to include 

drawings for forgings and castings if applicable, parts lists, etc. required to 

manufacture and test the item are contained in the SAR. If the SAR is for an 

assembly, verify interface of components for form and fit.

Note: Suppliers may only use the prime contractor or DoD approved forging or 

casting sources for specific forgings/castings.

3.5.1.1.4 Determine if all required drawings for special/master tools and/or 

fixturing are referenced in the SAR. 
16 March 2011

3-6

3.5.1.1.5 Ensure the cover pages of all required prime contractor or OEM 

specifications are included, or if other than Prime/OEM specifications are being 

used (e.g. PMA holder, alternate item, etc.), then complete specifications need to 

be provided.

3.5.1.1.6 Verify that ALL important processes, tests, and inspections (for examples 

of important processes, tests, and inspections, see Exhibit C of the JACG Aviation 

CSI Handbook) are called out in the drawing package by reference to 

specifications and that suppliers for these processes are identified. Only 

approved sources may be used.

3.5.1.1.7 Review the drawings and verify that all required dimensions, instructions 

and notes are documented. If any discrepancies are detected in drawings, the 

correction will be written as part of the specification in any resultant contract or 

documents referenced in the contract.

3.5.1.1.8 Review other data and check for discrepancies:

• between the actual drawing revision levels and those cited on other 

correspondence or purchase orders,

• concerning aircraft usage/application (ensure the proposed part 

number/revision is not obsolete and is the preferred replacement)

• involving part numbers, configuration dash numbers, stock numbers, right or 

left designation, etc.,

• involving development/ownership and rights to the use of any required 

special tooling and master models, and

• involving data marked as proprietary and the included documentation 

demonstrating the rights to use that data.

3.5.1.2 Source Control Drawings (SCDs) and Other Control Drawings. Control

drawings are used to establish an item’s technical design and performance 

requirements and to identify suppliers that were determined to be capable of meeting 

these requirements at the time the drawing was released or updated. There are 

several types of Control Drawings, including Source Control Drawings, Vendor Item 

Drawings (also called Vendor Item Control Drawings), Specification Control Drawing, 

and similar variations.

SCDs are a special type of drawing, clearly annotated with the legend "Source Control 

Drawing”. SCDs differ from other types of drawings because they generally identify the 

only source(s) that the prime contractor has approved to manufacture the item shown 

on the drawing. (See Section 1.4 for further explanation of control drawings.). 

Therefore, suppliers listed on source control drawings are considered capable by the 

Prime/OEM of manufacturing the item and are generally considered approved by the 

Government, unless the cognizant Service ESA determines otherwise. In the case that 

the Government has created a source control drawing, then the suppliers listed on that 
16 March 2011

3-7

source control drawing are considered capable of manufacturing the item and are 

generally considered approved. However, suppliers listed on vendor item drawings and 

specification control drawings are suggested sources of supply (reference ASME Y14.24, 

Types and Applications of Engineering Drawings). Unfortunately, the terminology is not 

always used consistently across industry.

Quality inspection and approval procedures must be stated on the SCD or in a 

document referenced on the drawing. It is important to remember that SCDs in most 

cases do not disclose complete design information.

SCDs identify the only commercial or supplier items that the prime contractor has 

reviewed and approved to provide the performance, installation, and interchangeable 

characteristics required for one or more specific critical application. As a general rule, if 

the prospective supplier is not listed as an approved source on the source control 

drawing, DoD should not procure the items from that supplier. Even for an otherwise 

competitive procurement, no other supplier may legally produce that item and assign it 

the prime contractor's part number. The alternative to procuring SCD items from 

suppliers listed on the SCD is for the prospective supplier to submit their item to the 

prime contractor for qualification and potential addition to the SCD as an approved 

source. Additionally, the prospective supplier may submit a source approval request to 

the Government to provide their own P/N. 

If the procuring activity discovers that there is a system prime contractor, major 

subsystem contractor, or OEM approved source(s) other than those on the source 

control drawing, then ESA approval of that source is required. If sources other than 

those listed on the source control drawing are approved, then an Engineering Change 

Notice (ECN) or Engineering Order (EO) must be created for the drawing in question to 

identify the new source for the source control drawing. Then the item’s Acquisition 

Method Suffix Code (AMSC) remains “B.” This code denotes that acquisition of the part 

is restricted to the OEM and/or source(s) specified on the ‘source control,’ altered item,’ 

or ‘selected item’ drawings. (See DFARS PGI 217.7506 SPARE PARTS BREAKOUT 

PROGRAM for proper code to apply and Section 3.5.1 for additional information 

regarding source controlled drawings.) If sources other than those listed on the control 

drawing need to be found or approved, proprietary information contained on the 

drawing will not be released.

3.5.1.3 Currency of Data. Determine if all documents in the SAR and on each sheet 

thereof are at the most current revision level available to the government and are 

consistent throughout the SAR. The most current revision level available to the 

government includes Engineering Change Proposals (ECP), Notice of Revisions (NOR), 

Design Change Notices (DCN), Engineering Change Orders (ECO), Engineering Orders 

(EO), Change in Designs (CID), etc. The procuring activity will assure that any 

resultant contract cites the correct revision of the component/assembly drawing.
16 March 2011

3-8

3.5.2. Manufacturing, Repair, Overhaul, Maintenance and Modification 

(ROMM) Review

3.5.2.1 SAR Categories

The language in this section is for the review of manufacturing/ROMM SARs that are 

submitted by the actual manufacturer/ROMM provider or their representative. The 

actual manufacturer/ROMM provider is defined as that supplier with plant equipment 

and personnel to manufacture/ROMM, on the premises, the item for which approval is 

requested. The SAR process defined herein does not apply to distributors because the 

Dealer/Distributor is not an approved source, but rather is an authorized 

Dealer/Distributor to an approved source. If a Dealer/Distributor requests approval to 

provide parts from a source that is not yet approved by the Government, then the 

Dealer/Distributor must also provide full SAR package data for the prospective 

manufacturer for the category submitted. Surplus offers are not covered by these 

procedures.

3.5.2.1.1 SAR Category I, Actual Item. These SARs are received from suppliers 

who have manufactured or performed ROMM on the exact item, using OEM technical 

data, for the prime contractor, OEM, another service, civil agencies, foreign 

governments, or for the civil sector under FAA PMA identicality. The item will be 

produced and evaluated against the ESA approved technical data package. 

To evaluate these SARs, the cognizant Service ESA should determine if the SAR 

adequately verifies that the supplier previously manufactured or performed ROMM on, 

and delivered quantities of the identical item for the prime contractor, OEM, or another 

DoD activity within the past 3 years for CSIs or 7 years for CAIs; has the current 

capability to produce identical items of consistent quality; and can manufacture or 

performed ROMM on them.

The engineering evaluation should ensure that the SAR adequately describes all 

essential manufacturing or ROMM processes required to produce the subject item; 

determine if the supplier's manufacturing, repair, or overhaul experience for the item is 

current; and determine if the SAR shows that the supplier has the capability and 

equipment to perform all required manufacturing, repair, or overhaul processes and 

adequately control any sub-contracted processes.

Note: For ROMM, there must be evidence that the supplier has written its plan to the 

appropriate technical data package (TDP) (e.g. the publication number, revision, and date 

of the TDP), as determined by each Service. Any sequences of operations/procedures that 

deviate from the appropriate TDP should be noted as such.

If it is determined that the proposed supplier's experience is not current or the SAR 

does not adequately document the supplier's ability to perform the required processes, 
16 March 2011

3-9

the cognizant Service ESA should specify the deficiencies in their comments, and return 

the SAR to the procuring activity or the supplier, as applicable, with a cover letter 

summarizing the deficiencies.

3.5.2.1.2 SAR Category II, Similar Item. These SARs are received from suppliers 

who have not previously manufactured or performed ROMM on the subject item, but 

have manufactured or performed ROMM on items similar in complexity, design, 

criticality, manufacturing and/or ROMM processes, materials, and application for the 

prime contractor, OEM, another service, civil agencies, foreign governments, or for the 

civil sector under FAA PMA identicality. The item will be produced and evaluated 

against the ESA approved technical data package.

Note: A similar item in this context is one whose design, application, operating parameters, 

material, and manufacturing processes required are similar to those of the item for which 

source approval is being sought. Multiple items having similar features, materials, etc. can 

be used to show manufacturing/ROMM capability in lieu of one similar item.

To evaluate these SARs, the cognizant Service ESA should determine if the SAR 

adequately describes all essential manufacturing or ROMM processes required to

produce the subject item; documents the supplier's capabilities to perform and/or 

control the processes needed to produce the subject item (e.g., equipment lists, 

approved process vendors, part suppliers, and qualified personnel); and documents the 

supplier's ability to produce the similar items with acceptable quality.

The cognizant Service ESA will determine if the similarity SAR satisfactorily 

demonstrates the supplier's ability to produce the subject item to specifications without 

compromise of the design intent.

The cognizant Service ESA will also evaluate item design, qualification, durability, and 

fatigue/life limiting factors and determine the extent of qualification testing that may be 

required. Testing will be used to verify that the item produced by the new source will 

provide equal life and performance to items currently operating in the field.

3.5.2.1.3 SAR Category III, New Manufacturer of Item This category covers 

offerors who do not meet Category I or II criteria but have the OEM’s technical data 

and intend to produce to the ESA approved technical data package.

To evaluate these SARs, the cognizant Service ESA should determine if the SAR 

adequately describes all essential manufacturing or ROMM processes required to 

produce the subject item; document the supplier's capabilities to perform and/or control 

the processes needed to produce the subject item (e.g., equipment lists, qualified 

subcontractors, and qualified personnel); and document the supplier's ability to produce 

the items with acceptable quality.
16 March 2011

3-10

The cognizant Service ESA will determine if the SAR satisfactorily demonstrates the 

supplier's ability to produce the subject item to specifications without compromise of 

the design intent.

The cognizant Service ESA will also evaluate item design, qualification, durability, and 

fatigue/life limiting factors and determine the extent of qualification testing that may be 

required. Testing will be used to verify that the item produced by the new source will 

provide equal life and performance to items currently operating in the field.

3.5.2.1.4 SAR Category IV: Alternate Item – These are SARs received from an 

offeror who is proposing an alternate part as the equivalent to the OEM part. These 

can be reverse engineered, but not reengineered components. Reengineering is the 

creation of an alternative design or manufacturing process and should be addressed via 

Engineering Change Process MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management Guidance. 

Reverse engineering is discussed in more detail in Sections 1.9 and Chapter 4 below 

and may require a new NSN be assigned. Alternate items may only be considered 

when the Section 1.9 criteria are met. 

FAA PMA items approved under “test & computation” fall under this category as the 

new design must be verified.

3.5.2.2 Manufacturing Process/Operation (Op) Sheets and ROMM Process 

Plans. For manufacturing SARs, the manufacturing operation sheets, which are 

generally referred to as "process sheets", "operation sheets", or "op sheets", must be 

reviewed to ensure that they reflect the step by step manufacturing procedures for 

producing the subject item. If dimensions, measurements, etc. are not accounted for 

on the manufacturing or ROMM process sheets but included on separate Inspection 

Method Sheets (IMS), then those IMS should also be submitted in the SAR.

For CSI parts the proposed vendor must provide the actual “stamped” Process/Op 

sheets for the manufacture of the part as well as any proposed differences for parts to 

be provided to the DoD. The actual “stamped” sheets are the actual Process/Op sheets 

that were used in the manufacture of the subject item or similar item, which are 

stamped, initialed, etc., that the processes were performed properly. CAT III and CAT 

IV SAR packages will not contain stamped Process/Op sheets. For suppliers who are 

subcontracting out all or a portion of the manufacture of the item, the actual 

manufacturer/subcontractor needs to provide process/op sheets. Process/Op sheets 

that state that a purchase order was sent to a sub-tier supplier and then the part was 

received and packaged is not considered sufficient.

For ROMM SARs, a detailed ROMM process plan (a.k.a. maintenance plans or work 

instructions) must be reviewed to ensure that it addresses the step-by-step ROMM 

procedures to repair or overhaul the subject item.
16 March 2011

3-11

3.5.2.3 Manufacturing Op Sheet and ROMM Process Plan Verification. If the 

proposing supplier previously manufactured or performed ROMM on the identical item 

for the prime contractor (i.e., Category I SAR), the supplier must provide complete op 

sheets (or process plans for ROMM), and verify that they are the same op sheets (or 

process plans for ROMM) that were used to produce the item for the prime contractor. 

If approval is requested based on similarity (i.e., Category II SAR), complete op sheets 

(or process plans for ROMM) for the similar item must be provided. The process 

operation sheets (or process plans for ROMM) for the similar item must demonstrate 

the proposing supplier’s comprehension of all the processes and operations needed to 

manufacture, ROMM, and inspect the approval item. For any category SAR, a mere 

summary of manufacturing or ROMM stations is not sufficient, nor is a summary 

description of a manufacturing or ROMM operation such as "mill and drill all holes per 

blueprint" acceptable. The op sheets and ROMM process plans must describe (to a 

level of detail necessary to demonstrate the source’s understanding of the proper 

sequence of processes and the controls necessary to maintain the critical 

characteristics) the processes performed (by both the prospective source and its 

supplier(s)) to produce the item. For example, the detailed operation sheets must 

describe the drilling sequence, type, dimensions, and location of each individual hole.

The cognizant Service ESA will review the proposed process operation sheets (or 

process plans for ROMM) for the subject item to ensure that the processes and process 

sequences proposed appear acceptable to produce the subject item.

Note: Many suppliers consider their op sheets or ROMM process plans competition 

sensitive and have been reluctant to disclose this information. Operation sheets and 

process plans are considered proprietary data; therefore, DoD personnel will ensure that 

adequate safeguards are taken to prevent this or any other proprietary data from being 

disclosed to third parties. Op sheets and process plans are not to be reproduced by the 

Government. 

Supplier Op sheets and ROMM process plans must provide detailed manufacturing or 

ROMM information including, but not limited to, the operation number and title, 

machine used and parameters, specifications and tolerances, subcontracted processes, 

special tooling, and in-process inspection requirements.

Op sheets and process plans must provide a legend to explain the notations on the 

sheets, (e.g., * = critical, S = subcontracted, I = inspect in-process, etc.). Any process 

performed by an outside supplier/outside source must be clearly distinguishable in the 

op sheets or ROMM process plans.
16 March 2011

3-12

3.5.3. Quality Assurance Review

The cognizant Service ESA will review and refine, as required, the qualification/QAP 

requirements for the item and include these changes as enclosures to the formal 

disposition letter. 

The DFARS, PGI 217.7506, Part 3-303.4c, Technical Evaluation Phase, makes the 

approval of a new source contingent upon capability to introduce adequate quality 

controls. Approval of a potential new source requires that: (1) a potential new source 

can satisfactorily perform the quality control responsibilities currently performed by the 

prime contractor, (2) the Government can satisfactorily perform the quality control 

responsibilities currently performed by the prime contractor, or (3) the prime contractor 

will perform the quality control services to the new source for the government. 

If neither the Government nor the potential new source have demonstrated the 

capability to assume the quality control responsibilities performed by the prime 

contractor during the manufacture of the subject item, and the prime contractor will not 

provide their quality control services to potential new sources of the subject item, then 

alternate or competitive procurement of the item is not feasible.

Specific Quality Assurance (QA) requirements should be based on guidance specified in 

FAR, Part 46, “Quality Assurance”, and DFARS, Part 246, “Quality Assurance”, and on 

individual service instructions. Inspections and testing (including who witnesses, 

location of where done, etc.) should be limited to only those necessary for quality, 

reliability and safety and to eliminate non-value added requirements. Refer to Chapter 

4 of the JACG Aviation CSI Handbook, Quality Management, for a detailed discussion of 

CSI quality concerns.

The cognizant Service ESA should consider the following questions for future contract 

planning:

• Is there sufficient information in the SAR to validate the First Article Test 

(FAT) requirement? If so, is it feasible and cost effective for the FAT to take 

place at the contractor’s facility versus a Government facility?

• Is a Production Lot Test (PLT) required? If so, is it feasible and cost effective 

for the PLT to take place at the contractor’s facility, witnessed and accepted 

by the Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) vice a Government facility?

• What type and extent of QAS involvement is needed for any required 

acceptance testing (i.e., should the QAS verify, witness, or perform the 

acceptance tests)?

Based on the answers to these questions, the appropriate testing/QA requirements 

should be selected and tailored to the specific requirements of the item in question. 
16 March 2011

3-13

Where structural fatigue testing is required, the cognizant Service ESA’s will specify the 

test requirements and procedures in the response to the SAR or at time of award.

The supplier's quality history should be reviewed to assess their ability to produce items 

requiring source approval at the required quality level. This review should cover the 

contractor's previous quality performance in producing the required item or any similar 

items, and/or performance on other Government contracts. The QA data should be 

examined for indications of the supplier's ability to perform the required manufacturing 

operations, the quality of supplier personnel and training, the effectiveness of corrective

actions, etc. Sources for quality history information include:

• Non-conforming material reports (e.g., Product Quality Discrepancy Reports 

(PQDRs) where the report narratives, the nature of the deficiencies, or quantity 

of reports indicate there may be supplier quality concerns);

• Material Review Board (MRB) data;

• Field data (e.g., Engineering Investigations, Material Deficiency Reports, etc.);

• Corrective Action Request (past and current); 

• Deviation requests. (See the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI Instruction, Sect. 

E.2.a (7)); and

• DCMA quality history information.

The SAR should be reviewed to ensure that it includes a QA requirement for the 

contractor to provide 100% inspection or 100% verification of the critical characteristics 

specified in the TDP/contract, unless approval to use sampling or statistical process 

control (SPC) has been authorized by the cognizant Service ESA and specified in the 

TDP/contract. The terms ‘inspection’ and ‘verification’ are occasionally used as if they 

are synonymous, but for the purposes of this handbook they connote different 

expectations. 

• ‘Inspection’ is the evaluation by observation and judgment accompanied, as 

specified, by the physical act of measurement, testing, or gauging to assess 

conformance with specified requirements. In practice, Government inspection 

means either the physical act of measuring, testing, and gauging products or 

witnessing someone else’s actual measurement, testing, and gauging of 

products. 

• ‘Verification’ involves the confirmation through review of objective evidence that 

specified requirements have been fulfilled. Objective evidence includes the 

records, data, analyses, and similar documentation that demonstrate inspections 

and tests were performed as required, procedures were followed, equipment and 

individuals were properly certified, and inspection and test results were factual 

and quantifiable, where appropriate.

Inspection requirements must ensure that operations are tracked and verified. These 

include a documented sequence of manufacturing and process operation, and work 

instructions that identify characteristics. Means for identification of the manufacturing 

and appraisal status will be provided at the completion of each pertinent operation (i.e., 
16 March 2011

3-14

those that generate, affect, control, or evaluate a characteristic) and provisions for 

maintaining lot integrity must be provided. Criteria for acceptance and rejection will be 

provided for all critical characteristics. IMS must be submitted for approval as part of 

the FAT.

Inspection requirements in SARs should be reviewed to:

• Verify proper use of a sampling plan based on the criticality of the 

characteristic to be inspected, with appropriate levels of inspection, sampling, 

and acceptable quality levels per acceptable non-Government standards such 

as ANSI/ASQC Z1.4- (latest issuance) Sampling Procedures and Tables for 

Inspection by Attributes.

• Ensure that critical characteristics can be inspected and have clear 

accept/reject criteria.

• Ensure that critical characteristics are not affected by unincorporated drawing 

changes.

Traceability of CSIs is essential. Actual or potential field problems with CSIs must be 

traceable back to the source of manufacture or ROMM, and to the processes/materials 

that were used during production. The objective is to ensure that marking 

requirements will permit item traceability back to the source of manufacture and the 

specific contract, and that the data can be used to identify suspect parts that have 

already been fielded.

In addition to traceability to the source and contract, CSIs must be marked with unique 

serial numbers, unless impractical or determined otherwise by the cognizant Service 

ESA. If serialization is required, the SAR must specify the method of marking. The 

location, marking content, size, and application process will be per the drawings and/or 

technical data package. When serialization is not required on a CSI, some form of 

distinguishable identification should be applied (e.g., lot or batch indicator, contractor 

and part identifier, etc.). Serialization is addressed further in Section 7.5.4 of the JACG

CSI Handbook. 

All contractor test and inspection data should be maintained as part of the contractor 

data file. Serialized items should be traceable back to the material certification and/or 

qualification testing done on the basic forging, billet, etc.

Other items affecting QA that require review are: any discrepancies and inconsistencies 

among different sections of the SAR; similarity cases where the prime contractor of the 

similar item is different than the prime contractor for the subject item, and therefore 

may require further analysis to verify true similarity of processes and materials; and 

performance history of proposed suppliers by reviewing field failure data (e.g., Joint 

Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS), Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program 

(PDREP), Excluded Parties List System data review), results of FAT/PLT, cross-service 

complaints, and QA status reports.
16 March 2011

3-15

3.6. SAR Disposition

After all data in the SAR have been reviewed, the cognizant Service ESA will consider 

the comments and recommendations of any other reviewers and assess whether: the 

SAR contains complete data; the supplier is a viable alternate source; there are 

adequate, controllable quality assurance provisions; and critical characteristics specified 

in the SAR are complete and technically adequate. As part of this decision, all 

discrepancies or concerns should be documented in the disposition letter to the 

procuring activity (or SAR POC as identified in Service-specific guidance).

Upon receipt of the cognizant Service ESA disposition of a SAR, the procuring activity 

(or SAR POC as identified in Service-specific guidance) then advises the supplier 

whether the SAR was approved or disapproved. If a site survey is required prior to 

source approval, the approval/disapproval letter should not be sent until after 

completion of the site survey.

3.7. Government Quality Assurance and Test Requirements

If a supplier is technically approved via the SAR review process, the cognizant Service 

ESA should ensure any previously identified contractor and Government quality 

assurance/test requirements (e.g., FAT, First Piece Layout (FPL), PLT, mandatory 

inspection requirements, etc.) and/or test reports are provided to the procuring activity 

prior to contract award for inclusion in the CDRL / DD Form 1423. CSI Quality 

Management is discussed in Chapter 4 of the JACG Aviation CSI Handbook.

It may be necessary to specifically identify item characteristics or tests for the 

Government QAS to inspect or witness. When this is the case, the procuring activity 

will provide the QAS with a Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI), which 

controls the extent, method, and duration of the inspection. Inspection instructions 

should be specific and cover the minimum number of inspections and/or tests that are 

required to verify the quality of the item. Avoid generalities such as “inspect all 

characteristics not classified as minor”. Excessive inspection requirements increase 

costs and/or impose needless workload on the QAS. Exhibit F of the JALC Aviation CSI 

Handbook contains instructions for issuing a QALI, as well as a sample QALI. Suppliers 

are contractually obligated to provide components or assemblies that meet all drawing 

and specification requirements, even if the characteristics on the drawings are not 

specifically identified as critical or major.
16 March 2011

4-1

Chapter 4

Reverse Engineering Process

A notional reverse engineering process for government funded/initiated items is 

depicted in Figure 4.1. Detailed procedures for each numbered block are described 

below. As indicated on the flowchart, program reviews should be performed at the end 

of each principal phase of the reverse engineering process to assure compliance to the 

process and to evaluate the need for continuing reverse engineering on the item. 

Government manufacturing via one-time manufacturing authorization is addressed in 

Section 7.2.

Figure 4.1 Reverse Engineering Process

Block 1. Conduct a feasibility study to answer functional/economic questions. 

Data required include a criticality determination, availability of an existing OEM TDP to 

include proprietary data issues; review and resolve proprietary data issues; determine if 

a substitute item is available; missing data requirements and testing requirements; and 

prepare a preliminary reverse engineering cost-estimate and schedule.

Block 2. Develop a Reverse Engineering Management Plan (REMP) for each 

candidate to document the urgency; to ensure that a logical sequence of events 

approved by the cognizant Service ESA is followed to prevent delays or 

misinterpretations in the overall program objectives; and to define who will fund the 

effort.
16 March 2011

4-2

Block 3. Gather data for each candidate item to ensure functional integrity is 

maintained. Conduct a thorough data analysis of the OEM TDP and other alternate 

data sources to determine whether data are missing; identify sample items (e.g., A or F 

condition) for analysis; resolve any additional proprietary data issues; and review 

testing requirements.

Block 4.a. Perform an analysis of hardware and/or embedded software i.e. 

microcode, firmware, etc. to develop any missing data required for Level 3 drawings or 

equivalent.

Block 4.b. Level 3 drawings or Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided 

Manufacture (CAD/CAM) TDPs are the result of the reverse engineering process and 

contain the documented parameters necessary to reproduce the selected candidate. 

Recorded parameters necessary to define the nominal design and establish tolerances 

may include dimensions, materials, electrical requirements and other specifications.

Block 4.c. Perform a quality control analysis and document it on the Level 3 

drawings (or equivalent) and candidate production representative units to certify their 

compliance with original candidate specifications. Quality Assurance Provisions (QAPs) 

and quality control documentation are all items to be considered. Besides determining 

producibility, consideration should be given to value engineering or other product 

improvement ideas to correct deficiencies found in the initial component analysis.

Block 5.a. Perform a Production Review (PR) to determine and 

approve/disapprove the economics of producing the reverse engineered item and 

whether it should be manufactured organically or outsourced to a supplier. This review 

will result in a “build to” TDP from which a prototype unit can be manufactured for FAT 

to include packaging and preservation (Packaging, Handling, Storage & Transportation 

(PHS&T)).

Block 5.b. After successful prototype completion, conduct a review to finalize the 

TDP with any revisions. Ensure that other inspections, tests, or evaluations that need 

to be conducted, in addition to prototype, are conducted on reverse engineered designs 

(e.g., fit checks, fatigue tests, interface evaluations, tolerance evaluations, etc.). 

Block 6. Compile the final TDP and deliver to the Government tasking agency 

reflecting the reverse engineering of the candidate item, which is a Government owned 

deliverable. A cognizant Service ESA-approved PLT involving test of a production unit 

may be required to determine if the reverse engineered item meets all required 

specifications. 
16 March 2011

5-1

Chapter 5

Alternate Source Site Survey

Site surveys can be a critical element of the alternate source qualification process and 

are specific to the location and the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code of 

the supplier, but should be strongly considered for CSIs. Site surveys provide insight 

into a supplier’s capabilities; answer basic questions relating to the manufacture, 

ROMM, inspection, production, testing, and delivery of an item. Site survey results help 

the cognizant Service ESA determine the level of Government supervision required to 

ensure that quality items are delivered. While the site survey is an important function 

of the approval process, lack of a site survey should not be the sole reason for rejecting 

a SAR package from a potential alternate source.

Site surveys should be performed if any of the following apply:

• for suppliers who have not previously manufactured or performed ROMM on 

CSIs; or

• as required by the cognizant Service ESA, if the supplier has not performed 

ROMM on, or manufactured and delivered the actual CSI or similar CSIs in 

production quantities and/or had a site survey within the past three years; or

• as required by the cognizant Service ESA, if there has been a change in 

company location, ownership, and/or name since the last delivery of the 

actual or similar critical items and the cognizant Service ESA engineer 

determined that documentation provided by the company to describe the 

nature of the change is not sufficient; or

• as required by the cognizant Service ESA, if the supplier has not performed 

ROMM on, or manufactured and delivered the actual item or similar items in 

production quantities and/or had a site survey; or

• as required by the cognizant Service ESA, if quality issues have been 

identified. 

If a site survey is required prior to source approval, notification to the procuring activity 

or supplier, as applicable, is required prior to source approval. In these cases, the 

company cannot be added as an approved source of supply until the site survey is 

completed and thus the source approval/disapproval letter should not be sent until the 

site survey has been completed. However, the technical evaluation of the SAR can be 

completed prior to completion of the survey. 

The lead activity or agency for the site survey (survey initiator) will negotiate specific 

survey dates with the supplier. The survey typically lasts no more than three working 

days and must be completed prior to SAR approval and contract, unless specifically 

authorized by the cognizant Service ESA. As appropriate, the lead activity will 

coordinate the scheduling of surveys with other Services.
16 March 2011

5-2

The site survey team will minimally consist of an engineer or equipment specialist with 

manufacturing and/or industrial experience and quality assurance personnel from the 

interested Service(s). Other personnel may be required to support a survey if there are 

specific details that need to be addressed (e.g., availability of specific tooling, 

equipment, jigs, repair or overhaul issues, etc.). The lead activity will gather input from 

all survey team members and publish the formal site survey report.

A formal report of each survey is prepared by the lead activity within ten days of 

completion of the survey. The report consolidates the comments, observations, and 

recommendations of all team members and provides a schedule for follow-up actions, if 

required. Copies of the formal report are provided to team members and sent to the 

supplier via the integrated material manager activity. A copy of the report and any 

corrective actions will be included in future SARs from the supplier. Working papers will 

be retained by the survey lead for reference to support future SAR submissions from 

the supplier.

Site survey teams also conduct pre- and post-survey contractor briefings. Any concerns 

or findings are shared with the company at the exit brief. Typically, the company has 

30 days to address any major concerns.

5.1. Site Survey Checklist

Exhibit C contains a Site Survey Checklist that can be tailored for a variety of survey 

requirements including source approval, site surveys, pre-award surveys, Supplier 

Interface and Oversight Program (SIOP) surveys, etc. The checklist may be tailored for 

a particular inspection, and should be provided to the supplier prior to the visit. The 

checklist has three main parts:

• Part 1 contains an introduction with instructions for completing the checklist. 

It also provides general questions about the facility (location, size, points of 

contact, DoD contracts/parts, etc.), as well as a form for listing all visit 

participants.

• Part 2 is a comprehensive list of questions that cover: (1) Production and 

Contract History, (2) Production Engineering and Planning, (3) Industrial 

Resources and (4) Quality Assurance Program Compliance. The checklist 

should be completed as fully as possible so that it can serve as a record of 

review to help preclude duplicate effort for other purposes (e.g., even though 

a site survey may have been initiated for a source approval request, it may 

also suffice as a CSI or quality program review). 

• Part 3 is a Finding Report containing two forms – one for individual findings, 

and one to be used as a summary of findings. Detailed instructions and 

definitions are provided. These forms may also be used to track follow-up 

actions and corrective actions, if desired.
16 March 2011

5-3

5.2. Pre-Award Surveys

Site surveys are conducted to provide insight into a supplier’s capabilities; answer basic 

questions relating to the repair, overhaul, manufacture, inspection, production, testing, 

and delivery of items. Pre-award surveys for potential sources of repair, overhaul or 

manufacture should be performed for item-specific issues (i.e., complex items, 

problematic items, etc.) to verify requirements in solicitation and for suppliers who have 

previously repaired, overhauled or manufactured items in production quantities for DoD 

but the actual item requires operations, processes, or inspections not previously 

demonstrated by the supplier. Pre-award surveys may be completed for suppliers when 

their SAR includes information that is incomplete or unclear. This includes changes in 

capabilities, processes, specialized staff, manufacturing or quality problems, or issues 

unresolved from a previous survey. When a pre-award survey is required as the result 

of a SAR review, the decision to perform the survey will be included in the disposition 

letter from the cognizant Service ESA, and the procuring activity will issue a letter to 

DCMA documenting the QALI requirements. The DCMA Pre-award Survey Request 

Form (SF1403) provides a means for requesting a survey.

5.3. Joint Repository for Past Site Surveys

To promote inter-Service efficiency a common repository for past site surveys is being 

developed. Until the common repository is completed, contact your service CSI 

representative to obtain a copy of completed surveys. 
16 March 2011

6-1

Chapter 6

Source Validation and Disqualification

The Government must ensure sources of supply retain their capabilities over time. 

Prime contractors and OEMs retain their approval, unless revoked by the cognizant 

Service ESA for technical and/or quality reasons or by the procuring activity for 

contractual and/or legal reasons (such as OEM debarment). Alternate sources must 

successfully complete an initial source approval process and maintain their qualifications 

over time. A system of controls using site surveys, contract quality assurance 

requirements, DCMA oversight, and product testing contribute to ensuring the 

capabilities of approved sources are maintained.

6.1. Revalidation of Sources of Supply

Revalidation is not synonymous with re-qualification. 

Sources of supply that have not provided a specific item requiring source approval 

within three years of an anticipated solicitation must be revalidated as an approved 

source by the cognizant Service ESA. Before performing the revalidation, the cognizant 

Service ESA will determine to what extent a review is to be conducted. Revalidation 

ensures sources remain capable of delivering satisfactory items. Generally, prime 

contractors and certain OEMs will not need revalidation, even if they have not delivered 

(or performed ROMM on) the specific items requiring source approval within 3 years. 

However, revalidation of prime/OEMs may be considered if there have been issues such 

as product quality concerns, manufacturing process changes, manufacturing location 

changes, manufacturing facilities transfers, financial concerns, or if a new source is 

being approved by the prime contractor. Any revalidation process should include 

dialogue with the cognizant DCMA Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) and the 

IMM. Refer to Sections E.2.c. and d. of the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI 

Instruction for additional information.

The Integrated Material Manager (IMM) is responsible for notifying the cognizant 

Service ESA when a revalidation of an approved source is required. The cognizant 

Service ESA would be notified when:

• the source has not manufactured or performed ROMM on the specific items 

requiring source approval for the DoD within three years prior to an 

anticipated solicitation; or

• there are concerns regarding product quality; or

• manufacturing or ROMM process changes have occurred.
16 March 2011

6-2

6.2. Re-qualification of Sources of Supply

Re-qualification is not synonymous with revalidation. Re-qualification is a requirement 

placed on suppliers that have been formally removed from a Service's list of approved 

sources for any reason, including but not limited to technical, quality, and/or contractual 

issues. Re-qualification may require submission of a complete source approval request 

meeting current Service requirements. Deviations or submissions of partial packages 

must be approved by the cognizant Service ESA.

6.3. Notification of Removal as Approved Source

Suppliers must be promptly notified if they are no longer considered an approved 

source (e.g., if the item was recently determined to be a CSI), in accordance with FAR 

9.207(b), Changes in Status Regarding Qualification Requirements. This notification 

must be submitted to the supplier via a notification letter from the procuring activity (or 

SAR POC as identified in Service-specific guidance). At a minimum, the letter should:

• advise that the procuring activity cannot acquire items from that source to 

satisfy requirements for the subject item;

• provide the reason(s) the source was removed; and

• identify the action(s) required by the source to become an approved source 

for the subject item.
16 March 2011

7-1

Chapter 7

Government Manufacture of Critical Items (CIs)

Critical Items (CIs) are considered in this document to include both CSIs and CAIs.

Service aviation depots and other Government facilities may be authorized by the 

cognizant Service ESA to manufacture aviation CIs. In order to be considered for CI 

manufacturing, Government manufacturing facilities should have extensive organic 

production facilities, resident aviation engineering staff, an established cognizant 

Service ESA-approved quality program, and an established CI management program 

approved by the cognizant Service ESA.

Service aviation depots and other Government facilities may be authorized to 

manufacture CIs via two methods: alternate source approval and one-time 

manufacturing. Alternate source approval is used for routine, recurring production and 

is process oriented to ensure airworthiness and repeatability via process controls and 

documentation. One-time manufacturing is used when there is an urgent need for a 

limited quantity of CIs to meet immediate production or fleet operational requirements 

and there is either no approved source or the turnaround time from approved sources is 

unacceptable. One-time manufacturing is item oriented to ensure airworthiness via 

conformance with design requirements.

Authorization for one-time manufacture of an item must not be used to circumvent 

alternate source approval requirements for repeat or routine production.

7.1. Government Manufacturing Authorization via Alternate Source Approval

A Government facility (e.g., Service aviation depot) may be granted alternate source 

approval once the cognizant Service ESA confirms the facility meets all requirements 

established for alternate source approval for commercial facilities. The cognizant 

Service ESA may decide to employ an abbreviated SAR review process; however, at a 

minimum, a manufacturing plan should be reviewed and approved that includes:

• product level drawings or equivalent;

• manufacturing process sheets;

• proper quality assurance requirements;

• identification of raw material; and

• tracking method to be utilized during manufacturing.

The cognizant Service ESA should determine if qualification testing prior to contract 

award or FAT after award should be accomplished. Following the successful completion 
16 March 2011

7-2

of testing, any proposed changes to the source’s manufacturing plan should be 

reviewed and approved by the cognizant Service ESA.

Non-aviation depot Government facilities are required to submit a formal SAR for 

cognizant Service ESA review and approval per Chapter 3 above, in order to be a 

candidate as an alternate source for recurring production, unless Service-unique 

procedures provide other guidance.

When a Service aviation depot or other Government facility has satisfied the alternate 

source approval criteria, that source should be added to the Service’s approved source 

list as an approved source (if applicable), just as if they were a non-Government facility. 

See Service-specific guidance on adding Government facilities to approved sources list. 

This will provide notification to the procuring activity, and will allow the procuring 

activity to include the depot/facility in future solicitations and contract awards.

7.2. Government Manufacturing via One-Time Manufacturing Authorization

7.2.1 CSI

Authority for one-time manufacturing of a CSI may be granted by the cognizant Service 

ESA to a Service aviation depot or other government facility only when the conditions 

stipulated by the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI Instruction, paragraph E.2.j.(2) are 

satisfied.

If a CSI produced under the one-time manufacturing authority does not meet original 

manufacturer requirements or has not been fully qualified, the cognizant Service ESA 

will establish and ensure publication of applicable operating procedures, restrictions, 

and limitations as well as applicable maintenance, inspection, tracking, and disposal 

requirements.

During one-time manufacturing, quantities in excess of the immediate need may be 

manufactured where additional items are necessary for testing (e.g., first article, fatigue 

strength, other destructive tests) or the economics of production or item usage indicate 

this is clearly advantageous to the Government. The authority for one-time 

manufacture must not be used to circumvent alternate source approval requirements 

for repeat or routine production. This one-time manufacturing requirement does not 

apply to items produced to support research, development, test, or evaluation. Parts 

produced in accordance with the one-time manufacturing procedures must be coded, 

tracked, and disposed of as military-unique CSIs.
16 March 2011

7-3

7.2.2 CI, other than CSI

Government facilities are authorized to manufacture CIs other than CSIs in limited 

quantities (one or a few) on a “one-time basis” without undergoing the full alternate 

source approval process.

The cognizant Service ESA should confirm:

• there is an urgent requirement for the item that cannot be satisfied by a 

previously approved source;

• the technical requirements for the item have been fully established;

• the resulting items are equivalent to or better than the items manufactured 

by the formally approved source(s);

• the quality and manufacturing attributes are traceable from raw material 

point of origin to finished goods; and

• any special testing or data requirements established by the cognizant Service 

ESA have been satisfied.

When an item produced under this one-time manufacturing authority does not meet 

original manufacturer requirements or has not been fully tested, the cognizant Service 

ESA should establish and ensure publication of applicable operating procedures, 

restrictions, and limitations as well as applicable maintenance, inspection, tracking, and 

disposal requirements.
16 March 2011

I-1

Appendix I

Acronyms

AMC Acquisition Method Code

AMSC Acquisition Method Suffix Code

AMSE American Society of Mechanical Engineers

CAD Computer Aided Design

CAGE Commercial and Government Entity

CAI Critical Application Item

CAM Computer Aided Manufacture

CAT Category

CCB Configuration Control Board

CDRL Contract Data Requirements List

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CI Critical Item

CICA Competition in Contracting Act

CID Change in Design

CIM Critical Item Management

CIPRD Critical Item Procurement Requirements Document

CNC Computer Numerically Controlled

CSI Critical Safety Item (For this Handbook, CSI refers to AVIATION CSI.)

DCA Design Control Activity (Synonym: Engineering Support Activity (ESA))

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency

DCN Design Change Notice

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

DoD Department of Defense

DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service

ECN Engineering Change Notice

ECO Engineering Change Order

ECP Engineering Change Proposal

EI Engineering Investigation

EO Engineering Order

ESA Engineering Support Activity (synonym: Design Control Activity (DCA)) 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FAT First Article Test 
16 March 2011

I-2

FAX Facsimile

FedBizOpps Federal Business Opportunities

FLIS Federal Logistics Information System

FPL First Piece Layout

FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis

FSC Federal Supply Classification

GFM Government-Furnished Material

IMM Integrated Materiel Manager 

IMS Inspection Method Sheet

ISO International Organization for Standardization

JALC Joint Aeronautical Logistics Commanders

JDRS Joint Deficiency Reporting System

LES Local Engineering Specification

LPS Local Process Specification

MCR Manual Change Revision

MEO Maintenance Engineering Orders

MRB Material Review Board

M&TE Measurement and Test Equipment

NADCAP National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NDI Non-destructive Inspection

NDT Non-destructive Test

NIST National Institute of Standards & Technology

NOR Notice of Revision

NSN National Stock Number

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

OP Sheet Manufacturing Process/Operations sheet

PGI Procedures, Guidance and Information

P/N Part Number

PCO Procurement Contracting Officer

PDREP Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program

PHS&T Packaging, Handling, Storage & Transportation

PLT Production Lot Test

PMA Parts Manufacturer Approval

POC Point of Contact

PQDR Product Quality Deficiency Report

PR Production Review

PVA Product Verification Audit

QA Quality Assurance
16 March 2011

I-3

QAD Quality Assurance Document

QALI Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction

QAM Quality Assurance Manual 

QAP Quality Assurance Provisions

QAR Quality Assurance Representative

QAS Quality Assurance Specialist

QPD Qualified Products Database

QPL Qualified Products List

QM/P Quality Manual/Procedure

R&O Repair & Overhaul

RCC Requirements Control Card

REMP Reverse Engineering Management Plan

ROMM Repair, Overhaul, Maintenance and Modification

RPPOBP Replenishment Parts Purchase or Borrow Program 

S/N Serial Number

SAR Source Approval Request

SCD Source Control Drawing

SIOP Supplier Interface & Oversight Program

SOS Source of Supply

STC Supplemental Type Certification

SPC Statistical Process Control

TC Type certified

TDBD Top Down Breakdown

TDP Technical Data Package 

T/M/S Type/Model/Series

TSO technical standard order 

URL Uniform Resource Locator
16 March 2011

A-1

Exhibit A

Source Approval Request Package Contents Guide

For New Manufacture

A.1. Purpose

The purpose of this Exhibit is to provide additional guidance for preparing a 

Source Approval Request (SAR).

A.2. Definitions

This information pertains to items identified as requiring source approval. These 

alternate source approval procedures apply only to new, manufactured items. 

This exhibit does not address ROMM or surplus items.

• A CSI, as defined in Public Law 108-136 “National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004”, Section 802, Quality Control in 

Procurement of Aviation Critical Safety Items and Related Services, is:

"A part, assembly, installation equipment, launch equipment, 

recovery equipment, or support equipment for an aircraft or 

aviation weapon system if the part, assembly, or equipment 

contains a characteristic any failure, malfunction, or absence 

of which could cause:

- a catastrophic or critical failure resulting in the loss of 

or serious damage to the aircraft or weapon system;

- an unacceptable risk of personal injury or loss of life; or

- an uncommanded engine shutdown that jeopardizes 

safety."

• DoD-STD-2101 defines a critical characteristic as: 

"A characteristic that analysis indicates likely, if defective, to 

create or increase a hazard to human safety, or to result in 

failure of a weapons system or major system to perform a 

required mission."

A CAI, as defined in the Multi-Service/Defense Agency CSI 

Instruction is: “An item that is essential to weapon system 

performance or operation, or the preservation of life or 

safety of operating personnel, as determined by the military 

services.” 
16 March 2011

A-2

A.3. Guidance

a. For items not coded full and open competition, only those sources previously 

approved by the Government will be solicited. The time required for approval of 

a new supplier is normally such that award cannot be delayed pending approval 

of the new source.

If a potential offeror can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the contracting 

officer that the potential offeror (or its product) meets the standards 

established for source approval or can meet them before the date specified 

for award of the contract, a potential offeror may not be denied the 

opportunity to submit and have considered an offer for a contract solely 

because the potential offeror is not currently approved. 

Please note that if evaluation of the source approval request cannot be 

processed in time to meet logistics support requirements, award will be made 

to a currently approved source. The request can still be processed for 

consideration against future requirements.

The submission of complete documentation as specified in this guide is 

essential for consideration of the source approval request. If the 

documentation is inadequate or incomplete, the submitter will be notified of 

deficiencies for potential resubmittals.

b. Source Approval Categories -- there are basically four conditions under which 

Source Approval Requests (SARs) will be categorized:

• SAR Category I, Actual Item. - These SARs are received from 

suppliers who have manufactured or performed ROMM on the exact 

item to the OEM technical data for the prime contractor, OEM, another 

service or, a civil sector under FAA PMA identicality. The item will be 

produced and evaluated against the ESA approved technical data 

package. 

• SAR Category II, Similar Item– These SARs are received from 

suppliers who have not previously manufactured, repaired, or 

overhauled the subject item, but have manufactured or performed 

ROMM on items similar in complexity, design, criticality, 

manufacturing/repair/overhaul processes, materials, and application 

for the a) Prime Contractor, OEM, or another service using OEM data, 

or b) civil sector under FAA PMA based on identicality. The item will 

be produced and evaluated against the ESA approved technical data 

package.
16 March 2011

A-3

• SAR Category III, New Manufacturer of Item - This category 

covers offerors who do not meet Category I or II criteria but have the 

OEM’s technical data and intend to produce to the ESA approved 

technical data package.

• SAR Category IV, Alternate Item - These are SARs received from an 

offeror who is proposing an alternate part as the equivalent to the 

OEM part. These can be reverse engineered, but not reengineered 

components. Reengineering is the creation of an alternative design or 

manufacturing process and should be addressed via Engineering 

Change Process MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management Guidance. 

Reverse engineering is discussed in more detail in Section 1.9 and in 

Chapter 4 of the main body of this Handbook and may require a new 

NSN be assigned. Alternate items may only be considered when the 

Sourcing Handbook Section 1.9 criteria are met.

c. If a dealer/distributor (non-manufacturing source) of the item is seeking

approval as a source, the category to which the actual manufacturer belongs will 

apply for purposes of approval procedures. This is because the 

Dealer/Distributor is not approved as an approved source, but rather as an 

authorized Dealer/Distributor to an approved source. The actual manufacturer is 

defined as that supplier with plant equipment and personnel to manufacture, on 

the premises, the item for which approval is requested. Therefore, the name, 

address and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code of the supplier 

(actual manufacturer) is required and must be provided for consideration of 

source approval together with all data supporting the category for which 

approval applies. Approval of a dealer/distributor is based upon the traceability 

to an approved source and approval of the dealer/distributor will be removed 

from the approved source list if the distributor changes their proposed source 

after approval. The source evaluation/approval procedures apply only to 

newly-manufactured items. Surplus offers are not covered by these 

procedures.

d. To reduce the time required for processing a SAR, it is important for the 

potential supplier to provide ALL of the required information when submitting a 

SAR. Submission of a complete SAR is the best method for obtaining timely 

review. Additional information, documentation and/or samples may be required 

for any SAR category to allow for further evaluation of the submitting company's 

request; however, the submission of the requested information does not 

guarantee approval. In some cases, qualification parts may be required as 

determined by the technical evaluation to be used for testing which may include, 

but not be limited to, performance and/or endurance testing. Regardless of the 

SAR category, a site survey of the facility may be conducted to further evaluate 

the requestor's capabilities.
16 March 2011

A-4

e. A SAR package should be submitted for one (1) part or assembly per request. 

However, a supplier may request permission from the ESA to submit one SAR for 

a family of parts made to the same drawing or specification.

f. The SAR information and documentation can be submitted in two formats, 

Compact Disk (CD) or hard copy. The preferred method for SAR documentation 

is digitally on CD. If the data are submitted via a contractor produced CD, it can 

only be accepted in .PDF format. 

Note: Many suppliers consider this information competition sensitive and have 

been reluctant to disclose. DoD personnel will ensure that adequate safeguards 

are taken to prevent this or any other proprietary data from being disclosed to 

third parties. 

g. FAA PMA approved manufacturers must submit their SAR under the 

appropriate SAR category. PMA items approved through identicality where the 

supplier has manufactured the actual item should be submitted under SAR 

Category I, Actual Item. PMA items approved through identicality where the 

supplier has manufactured a similar item, should be submitted under SAR 

Category II, Similar Item. Suppliers who have PMA approval for the subject part 

by identicality but have never actually manufactured the subject item or a similar 

item should be submitted under SAR Category III. PMA items approved under 

“test & computation” should be submitted under SAR Category IV, Alternate Item 

as the new design must be verified.
16 March 2011

A-5

A.4 CSI Source Approval Request Contents Checklist

Category I: Actual Item

Category II: Similar Item (Equivalent)

Category III: New Manufacturer of Item

Category IV: Alternate Item

SAR 

Element Required Element Description

CAT I CAT II CAT III CAT IV

* A TABLE OF CONTENTS IS REQUIRED FOR ALL SARs

A Cover Letter X X X X

B Technical Data Rights Certification Statement X X X X

C Supplier Brochure & Correspondence X X X X

D Quality Assurance Documentation X X X X

E Subject Item Drawings X X X X

F Subject Item Specifications X X X X

G Sub-tier Supplier List X X X X

H Quality History X X X X

I Similar Item Drawings X

J Similarities/Differences of Subject/Similar Items X

K Purchase Orders & Shipping Documents X X X

L

Process/Operations Sheets (POS/Op Sheets) and 

Travelers X X X

X

M Inspection Method Sheets (IMS) X X X X

N Prime Contractor's Quality Rating System Report X X X X

O Licensee Agreement (if agreement exists) X X X X

P Value Added (By Prime or OEM) X X X X

Q Government / Prime Contractor Surveys X X X X

R Pre-Qualification Test Plans X X X X

S Test Results X X X X

T Master Tooling Certifications X X X X

U Government Quality Assurance Compliance X X X X

V FAA PMA Letter or Supplement (If PMA applicable) X X X X

W Alternate Item Source Component Purchase Orders X

X Statistical Data X

Y Reverse Engineering Management Plan X

Z Alternate Application Environment X

A.5. Detailed Descriptions of Each SAR Element 

The contractor should first select which category is appropriate for the part it is 

seeking approval to manufacture. The contractor must provide a package 

containing all required SAR elements (as defined below) for the category selected. 
16 March 2011

A-6

Each lettered paragraph below corresponds to a SAR element in the above table. 

If a requirement does not exist for a specific part (e.g. no test plan required) then 

provide a statement to that fact.

Note: Approval to supply an assembly is not an automatic approval to 

manufacture all tier components unless the SAR clearly demonstrates the supplier’s 

ability and intent to manufacture the subcomponents of the assembly. If the tier 

component is a source controlled item, or if the government does not have the data 

rights for the tier item, the government cannot grant approval to manufacture the 

tier item. If not submitted as part of the assembly SAR, a separate package must 

be submitted for each component. If the SAR includes a request to be added to 

the approved parts list to manufacture subpart numbers, identify the additional 

parts by part number.
16 March 2011

A-7

Requirements for each SAR element are as follows:

A. COVER LETTER - A cover letter stating a supplier’s request to become an 

approved source for a particular part must include the following information and 

enclosures:

1. The part number and dash number, if applicable, original part Prime 

Contractor/OEM name and CAGE code, NSN, nomenclature, and weapon 

system (i.e. engine model (Type/Model/Series), aircraft designation).

2. The applicant company’s name, address, CAGE, telephone number, FAX 

number, and email/EDI address, and website (if applicable).

3. The category of SAR being submitted, as defined above. 

4. A description of the company’s quality program (i.e., MIL-I-45208, MILQ-9858, ANSI/ISO 9000 series documents, AS9100 and the identification 

of the reviewing/approving organization and date for the quality 

program).

5. If available, provide a list of relevant certifications (i.e. NADCAP), such 

as casting/forging, plating, grinding of high-strength steel, NDI, etc.

6. A statement that the contractor is willing to provide a technical briefing 

on the SAR package submittal to the procuring activity or at any of the 

cognizant Service Engineering Support Activities (ESA’s) if required.

B. TECHNICAL DATA RIGHTS CERTIFICATION STATEMENT – This is a certification 

of rights to use technical data in the format provided below, signed on 

company letterhead signed by an authorized binding company official. This is a 

certification that the data were obtained by legal means and the company has 

the rights to use the data supplied in the SAR for manufacturing purposes. If 

proprietary data are involved, a statement from the owner of that data that 

conveys the rights to specifically use that piece of data must be provided.

Note: This also applies to the use of data the Government possesses but does 

not have the right to use in competitive manufacturing.

The following is an example of a technical data rights letter.

EXAMPLE: TECHNICAL DATA RIGHTS CERTIFICATION LETTER

I am an officer and employee of the above name legal entity with the 

responsibility for investigating the facts upon which this certification is 

made.

 To the best of my knowledge and information obtained from my 

recent investigation:
16 March 2011

A-8

 a. I certify that the technical data submitted as a part of my 

company’s request for approval as potential source for the purpose of 

obtaining a contract were obtained by legal means by my company, 

without breach of any contractual or confidential relations pertaining to 

said technical data by my company, its current or recent employees; and

 b. I certify that my company, its current or recent 

employees did not obtain or receive any technical data marked with a 

company’s proprietary rights legend or a Government limited rights 

legend from any U.S. Governments agency or employee or other third 

parties that were used in the preparation of or were incorporated into 

the request for approval or its supporting technical data other than as 

described herein; and

 c. I certify that my company has the legal right to use said 

technical data to manufacture the below identified part for the United 

States Government. To the extent that said technical data are marked 

with a company’s proprietary rights or a Government limited rights 

legend or are otherwise believed to be or have in the past been the 

proprietary data of another company, the following documents which are 

attached hereto and made a part of the certification have formed the 

basis for claiming legal right to use said technical data. Such 

documentation must clearly cover the data necessary for source 

approval.

THIS CERTIFICATION CONCERNS A MATTER WITHIN THE 

JURISDICTION OF AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE

MAKING OF A FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATION 

MAY RENDER THE MAKER SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION UNDER THE 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1001.

THIS CERTIFICATION APPLIES TO: 

NSN______________________P/N__________________

Note: If SAR package is for multiple NSNs, all NSNs must be listed.

 

(signature)___________ _(date)____ ___ 

(typed or printed name & title)__ 

 

C. SUPPLIER BROCHURE AND CORRESPONDENCE - A company brochure and a 

synopsis outlining the applicant firm’s capabilities, facilities (such as location, 
16 March 2011

A-9

number of buildings, sq. footage, etc.), experience, and equipment list should 

be provided. For all equipment used in the manufacture of the qualification 

part, outline the accuracy, size, capability and precision of the equipment. This 

information should be updated as facility and facility operations change. As a 

potential source for parts, the proposed supplier and its sub-tier suppliers may 

be required to demonstrate adequate engineering expertise and 

manufacturing/production capabilities to manufacture, inspect, and test the 

subject component/item/assembly in accordance with all applicable drawings, 

material, process, and test specifications. An onsite inspection of these 

elements may be required by the Government or its designee.

D. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION - Provide a synopsis of the 

proposed supplier's quality program capabilities and reporting system. A 

copy of the company’s quality assurance manual and all referenced 

documentation must be provided. Quality assurance documentation should 

include a listing and copies of any independent approvals and certifications of 

quality programs, special manufacturing processes, etc. If provided 

electronically (preferred), it is requested in .PDF format. A copy of the 

supplier’s QA manual and all referenced documentation may be kept at the 

procuring activity. 

E. SUBJECT ITEM DRAWINGS - Provide all data required to manufacture, 

assemble and test the subject item. The subject item drawings typically 

include references to materials, processes, specifications, and may include 

data relating to mandatory inspections and inspection intervals. In addition 

to drawings (casting, forging, detail, assembly, source controlled, masters, 

airfoil data, schematics, etc.), data should include configuration (revision), 

parts list, any unincorporated Engineering Order (EO), Engineering Change 

Proposal (ECP), Notice of Revision (NOR), Design Change Notice (DCN), or 

Change in Design (CID), Requirements Control Card (RCC) and Quality 

Assurance Document (QAD), etc. For CAT IV, Alternate Item packages, if the 

vendor possesses or utilizes OEM drawings, complete copies of those 

drawings must also be included in the package

F. SUBJECT ITEM SPECIFICATIONS - Provide a complete listing of applicable 

specifications identified on the subject item drawings and a copy of the title 

page of the latest revision of each specification. For CAT IV, Alternate Item 

packages, where OEM or commercial specifications are not utilized, complete 

copies of internal specifications will be provided. For internal specifications, 

identify the commercial equivalent specification (if known/available). The list 

will be presented by specification title and number sequence and will include 

superseded documents, and will include the vendors who will use/implement 

each specification. The specification title page will be used to verify that the 

proposed supplier possesses all the required specifications. For CAT IV, 
16 March 2011

A-10

Alternate Item packages, if the vendor possesses or utilizes OEM 

specifications, complete copies of those specifications must also be included 

in the package

G. SUB-TIER SUPPLIER INFORMATION - Identify the sub-tier suppliers, if any, 

that the potential supplier intends to use. If no sub-tier suppliers will be 

used, state here that all work will be performed in house. Sub-vended 

processes should be denoted as critical or non-critical. All sub-tier suppliers 

should be listed in this section and a statement should be included verifying 

that these suppliers are currently OEM or government approved. For 

assemblies, identify suppliers of sub-components. Sub-components that are 

CSIs or CAIs must only be supplied by government approved CSI and CAI 

suppliers. If the potential supplier proposes the use of sub-tier suppliers who 

are not OEM or government approved, please submit complete 

documentation substantiating the capabilities and qualifications of the subtier supplier. It should be noted, however, that additional approval testing 

(as specified by the cognizant Service ESA) may be required in this 

circumstance.

H. QUALITY HISTORY – For the proposing supplier’s CAGE code provide a 

summary of Deficiency Reports experienced in the past 3 years for all items. In 

addition, provide a summary of Deficiency Reports for the subject and/or similar 

item for all proposed sub-tier suppliers. For the subject and/or similar item, 

provide a summary of (including but not limited to) internal deficiencies, 

commercial deficiencies, FAA Service Bulletins, Material Review Board (MRB) 

items, statistical reports of nonconformances, nonconforming material 

rejection reports, and scrap rates. In addition, provide data relative to subtier suppliers, actions and resolutions when applicable, on previous contracts. 

If there is no quality history, state as such.

The summary will include at a minimum the following data: P/N, 

Nomenclature, Feature, deficiency, quantity, date, and corrective action.

Note: Nonconformances are not necessarily perceived as an increase in risk 

when considering alternate source qualification. In fact, identification of 

nonconformances can illustrate a successful quality assurance program.

I. SIMILAR ITEM DRAWINGS - For Category II SARs, provide all data required 

to manufacture, assemble and test the similar item(s). This information 

includes drawings (casting, forging, detail, assembly, source controlled, 

masters, airfoil data, schematics, etc.), configuration (revision), parts list, any 

unincorporated Engineering Order (EO), Engineering Change Proposal (ECP), 

Notice of Revision (NOR), Design Change Notice (DCN), or Change in Design 

(CID), Requirements Control Card (RCC) and Quality Assurance Document 

(QAD), etc. The similar item drawings will typically include references to 
16 March 2011

A-11

materials, processes, specifications, and may include data relating to 

mandatory inspections and inspection intervals. 

J. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUBJECT AND SIMILAR ITEMS –

For CAT II SARs, the SAR must identify the specific similarities and 

differences in materials, coatings, design, manufacturing processes, operating 

environment, etc. between the similar item and the subject item. A matrix 

comparison is the preferred method.

K. PURCHASE ORDERS AND SHIPPING DOCUMENTS – Provide copies of at least 

one purchase order(s) and any amendments from the prime contractor, OEM, 

Government or other customers based upon the SAR category submitted. 

For Cat I or II, the purchase orders must be from the prime contractor, OEM, 

Government, foreign government, or commercial customer. This information 

should indicate when the supplier last produced the subject item or an item 

of similar manufacturing complexity (for Category II SARs). For Cat IV, 

provide copies of purchase orders and shipping documents (if applicable) for 

sales to/from commercial customers or OEM, as well as purchase orders and 

shipping documents to/from PMA holder and actual manufacturer of PMA part 

(if different). If you have never provided the part to any customer, identify 

this in your package. All documents in this section should be dated, and 

shipping documents should account for all items ordered. All financial 

information should be removed from these documents. It is important that 

documented performance is recent in order to adequately reflect the current 

manufacturing capabilities of the proposed supplier. Therefore, contract 

performance documentation included in SARs must be submitted no later 

than three (3) years for CSI and no later than seven (7) years for CAI after 

the date of last delivery, as evidenced by latest shipping document. The 

threshold should apply on the date the SAR is received by the procuring 

activity or IMM. If a contract was terminated, the reason for termination 

should be included in this section. The data provided in this section should 

be for the same contract(s) as those provided in SAR Elements L and M. 

L. PROCESS/OPERATION SHEETS (POS/OP SHEETS) AND TRAVELERS - Provide 

a detailed step-by-step account of the procedures necessary in the proper 

sequence to manufacture the subject or similar item depending on the SAR 

category. The sheets must indicate operation number, description, tolerance 

(specification), location, sub-tier suppliers, manufacturing software data file 

name, etc. necessary to control manufacturing operations and be 

signed/stamped off by in-process operator and/or inspector. For Category I 

packages, copies of the actual sheets used for production of the subject item 

must be submitted. For Category II packages, copies of the actual sheets 

used for production of the similar item must be submitted as well as detailed 

proposed op sheets for manufacture of the subject item in order to 
16 March 2011

A-12

demonstrate the proposing supplier’s comprehension of the required 

manufacturing processes. For Category III packages, proposed POS/OP 

sheets must be provided. For Category IV packages, submit either the actual 

manufacturing process operation sheets and any proposed changes from the 

original FAA-PMA or other approved process operation sheets, or the 

proposed operation sheets for new items. The data provided in this section 

pertaining to manufacturing history should be for the same contract(s) as 

those provided in SAR Elements K and M. The data provided must be from 

the actual manufacturer. 

Note: Route sheets that may be enclosed in this section are not to be 

considered a replacement for detailed operation sheets. Lack of detailed 

process/operations sheets pertaining to manufacturing history in the SAR is 

cause for disapproval of the supplier’s SAR.

M. INSPECTION METHOD SHEETS (IMS) - Provide the inspection sheets for the 

production of the subject or similar item. This information should include the 

nomenclature, part number, characteristics inspected, special instructions, 

zone, tolerances and actual measurements, inspection tooling/method, 

frequency and inspector's stamp. Provide the actual inspection sheets with 

the production data for Category I. Provide the actual inspection sheets with 

the production data for the similar item for Category II. Provide proposed 

inspection sheets for subject item in Categories II, III, & IV. IMS may be 

included as an integral part of the POS/OP sheets in SAR Element L. The 

data provided in this section should be for the same contract(s) as those 

provided in SAR Elements K and L.

N. PRIME/OEM CONTRACTOR’S QUALITY RATING SYSTEM REPORT – Provide 

the proposing supplier’s quality system report or rating from the prime 

contractor and/or OEM responsible for the subject item. Any manufacturing 

process certifications or approvals should be included along with any 

independent approvals and certifications provided by independent evaluators 

(e.g., NADCAP for special processes, AS 9100, etc.). If no rating from the 

subject part prime contractor/OEM is available, alternate quality ratings from 

another prime contractor and/or OEM should be submitted. If the company 

has not manufactured any items for a prime contractor/OEM and thus no 

quality rating is available, state as such. 

O. LICENSEE AGREEMENT (If applicable) - A copy of the licensee agreement 

between the proposed contractor and the prime contractor/OEM must be 

provided if the submitting contractor has such an agreement with the subject 

item prime contractor/OEM. If a copy cannot be provided, at a minimum a 

redacted portion showing the details of MRB activity, data rights, 

configuration control, source control, etc.
16 March 2011

A-13

P. VALUE ADDED (BY PRIME OR OEM) - Identify any value added provided by 

the prime contractor in the manufacture of the item. Value added is 

considered any action, manufacturing or inspection process, data, 

instructions, or equipment that is essential to the manufacture of the item, 

but is not documented in the data package. Examples of value added are the 

use of OEM qualification of sources for forgings, castings, raw materials; the 

use of OEM tooling, fixtures, gages or inspection master hardware; the use of 

OEM MPS, IMS, or other process related data not referenced on the part 

drawing(s); quality assurance of sub-tier suppliers of significant processes all 

as related to the performance of manufacture.

Q. GOVERNMENT/PRIME CONTRACTOR SURVEYS – If applicable, provide a copy 

of the latest survey report (survey, findings, and corrective actions) 

performed by a government agency and survey report (survey, findings, and 

corrective actions) performed by the prime contractors/OEMs within the past 

seven years. If there are none, state as such. This section can include any 

available DoD technical evaluations of the proposing supplier's production 

capability, quality assurance procedures, industrial resources, material 

purchasing, and sub-tier supplier controls.

R. PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST PLANS - If testing is required, all proposed test 

plans necessary to completely qualify the part must be submitted for approval 

prior to beginning testing. Testing may be at the contractor’s expense. The 

pre-qualification test/inspection procedures proposed and independent test 

laboratories proposed to be used have to be identified by Name, CAGE, 

address and telephone number. Test requirements are part specific. 

S. TEST RESULTS – If testing has already been conducted, provide part specific 

test results. If testing has not been conducted, comply with element R. 

T. MASTER TOOLING CERTIFICATIONS – Provide certification of access to and 

the right to use any required master tooling, special tooling/test equipment, 

mylars (stable base drawings), glass layout, and loft data/contour data as 

applicable to the latest item drawing revision. Include proof of calibration for all 

equipment/tooling requiring calibration. State if no master tooling or calibration 

is required. 

U. GOVERNMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE COMPLIANCE – Provide a statement

that the prospective supplier will comply with all government imposed quality 

assurance provisions, testing requirements, etc. as identified in the 

solicitation or contract for the subject item.

V. FAA PMA LETTER or Supplement (If PMA applicable) – If purchase orders 

and shipping documents for sales to/from PMA holder and actual 
16 March 2011

A-14

manufacturer of PMA part were provided, include the FAA letter or 

supplement. The FAA PMA letter, method of approval and documentation 

provided to and from the FAA should describe the basis of the FAA’s PMA 

approval and show applicability to the subject item platform and model. 

W. ALTERNATE ITEM SOURCE COMPONENT PURCHASE ORDERS – Include the 

original source component purchase orders and certificates of conformance 

for the actual manufacturer components used to derive alternate item source 

design. 

X. STATISTICAL DATA - Include the statistical data from the actual 

manufacturer components used to derive alternate item source design. If 

the part is in production, provide the statistical control data.

Y. REVERSE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PLAN – A reverse engineering 

management plan must be provided which describes the approach used to 

develop the specifications. The plan must describe all aspects of the 

proposed reverse engineered design, materials, critical characteristics, critical 

inspection processes, and critical manufacturing processes to satisfy 

requirements and how these were derived. 

Note: If the proposed source has not begun a reverse engineering effort, the 

source should provide the reverse engineering management plan prior to 

submittal of the SAR package.

Z. ALTERNATE APPLICATION ENVIRONMENT – For parts with a commercial 

application as described in element W, provide commercial operating mission, 

including environment, weight, safety assessments.
16 March 2011

B-1

1

Exhibit B

Example of SAR Review Checklist

SAR PACKAGE CONTROL NUMBER:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

SUPPLIER: APPROVAL: DISAPPROVAL: CONDITIONAL:

ITEM: APPROVAL: DISAPPROVAL: CONDITIONAL:

EVALUATING ACTIVITY:

DATE RECEIVED: DUE: RELEASED:

SCREENED BY: ORG: PHONE:

EVALUATED BY: ORG: PHONE:

I. TDP INFORMATION

A: PROPOSED SUPPLIER (NAME/CAGE): /

B: SUBJECT ITEM NOMENCLATURE:

C: SUBJECT ITEM (PRIME/OEM) PART NUMBER / REVISION: /

D: ALTERNATE ITEM PART NUMBER / REVISION:

E: NATIONAL STOCK NUMBER (NSN): 

F: TYPE MODEL SERIES (T/M/S): 

G: NEXT HIGHER ASSEMBLY: 

H: SUBJECT ITEM PRIME CONTRACTOR (NAME/CAGE): /

I: ITEM CRITICALITY:

CRITICAL SAFETY ITEM (CSI): (Y/N)

CRITICAL APPLICATION ITEM (CAI): (Y/N)

NON-CRITICAL: (Y/N

J: SUBMITTED SAR CATEGORY (Y/N): CAT I: CAT II:

CAT III: CAT IV:

K: IS A DESIGN CHANGE PENDING: 

ABOVE INFO PER (LTR REFERENCE): 

L: SIMILAR ITEM NUMBER(s): (if applicable) 

M: SIMILAR ITEM PRIME CONTRACTOR(s) (NAME/CAGE): /
16 March 2011

B-2

II. PACKAGE INVENTORY

SAR SCREENER: ORG/CODE:

PHONE: E-MAIL:

*NOTE AND EXPLAIN ANY PACKAGE INVENTORY ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SAR 

(SCREENER INITIAL)

YES NO N/A

A. Cover Letter

B. Technical Data Rights Certification Statement

C. Supplier Brochure & Correspondence

D. Quality Assurance Documentation

E. Subject Item Drawings

F. Subject Item Specifications

G. Sub-tier Supplier List

H. Quality History

I. Similar Item Drawings

J. Similarities/Differences of Subject/Similar Items

K. Purchase Orders & Shipping Documents

L. Process/Operations Sheets (Op Sheets) & Travelers

M. Inspection Method Sheets (IMS)

N. Prime Contractor's Quality Rating System Report

O. Licensee Agreement (if agreement exists)

P. Value Added (By Prime or OEM)

Q. Government / Prime Contractor Surveys

R. Pre-Qualification Test Plans

S. Test Results

T. Master Tooling Certifications

U. Government Quality Assurance Compliance

V. FAA PMA Letter or Supplement 

W. Alternate Item Source Component Purchase Orders

X. Statistical Data

Y. Reverse Engineering Management Plan

Z. Alternate Application Environment

NOTES & COMMENTS: (indicate item)
16 March 2011

B-3

III. SAR TECHNICAL EVALUATION (evaluator to complete and initial)

A. COVER LETTER (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO

1. Does the cover letter match the data presented in the package?

2. Is the supplier willing to provide a technical briefing?

NOTES & COMMENTS:

B. TECH. DATA RIGHTS CERTIFICATION STATEMENT (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO

Based upon the data rights certification letter from the proposed supplier:

1. Did the supplier legally obtain the tech data used in the SAR?

2. Does the supplier legally have the rights to use the tech data?

NOTES & COMMENTS:

C. SUPPLIER BROCHURE AND CORRESPONDENCE (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO

1. Does the supplier have the facilities for the necessary processes?

2. Are there any special concerns to be noted? (If YES, explain)

NOTES & COMMENTS:

D. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO

1. Is the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) provided with the SAR 

package?

2. Is all QAM referenced documentation (sub-tier procedures, etc.) 

included?

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-4

E. SUBJECT AND ALTERNATE ITEM DRAWINGS

1. Subject Item Drawings (Only applicable to Cat IV when proposed supplier possesses or utilizes Prime/OEM drawings)

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

a. Drawing Package YES NO

1) Is a current Parts Lists included?

2) Are the drawings for the latest revision?

3) Are all drawings sheets/frames included?

4) Are all Forgings and/or Casting drawing included?

5) Are all drawings legible? (If NO, list drawings/sheets/frames 

required)

6) Are any drawings marked "SOURCE CONTROLLED" or 

"SPECIFICATION CONTROL"? (If YES, list below.)

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

b. Raw Material: YES NO

1) Is the material(s) identified?

2) List material(s): 

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

c. Item Dimensions: YES NO

1) Top Down Break Down (TDBD) performed? (List missing 

data.)

2) Are there any Critical Dimensions marked on the drawing? (If 

YES, list)

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

d. Manufacturing/ROMM Processes: YES NO

1) Are any processes controlled by specification or Technical 

Manuals? (IF YES, list)

2) Are there any Critical processes? (If YES, list)

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

e. Special Tooling: YES NO

1) Is there any special tooling required? (If YES, list)

2) Is the tooling owned by the proposed supplier?

3) Is the tooling available to the proposed supplier?

4) Does the proposed supplier have use rights from the prime?

5) Will the proposed supplier build tooling?

6) Are drawings available?

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO

f. Do any of the data in the SAR contain proprietary statements or 

markings?* (If YES, list)

*This is a non-technical issue which the ESA will resolve before contract award.

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-5

2. Alternate Item Drawings (For CAT IV Only) (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

a. Is a current Parts Lists included?

b. Are the drawings for the latest revision?

c. Are all drawings sheets/frames included?

d. Are all Forgings and/or Casting drawing included?

e. Are all drawings legible? (If NO, list drawings /sheets/frames 

required)

f. Are any drawings marked "SOURCE CONTROLLED" or 

"SPECIFICATION CONTROL"? (If YES, list below.)

g. Does the alternate item drawing identify raw materials? 

h. List material(s): 

i. Do the raw materials on the Alternate Item drawing match the 

subject item drawings?

j. Top Down Break Down (TDBD) performed? (List missing data.)

k. Do the dimensions on the alternate item drawing match the 

dimensions on the subject item drawing?

l. Are there any Critical Dimensions marked on the alternate item 

drawing? (If YES, list)

NOTES & COMMENTS: 

F. SUBJECT ITEM SPECIFICATIONS: (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. List all specifications referenced in drawings (from Section E)

(list in comments or attached sheet):

2. Are all Prime/OEM/Commercial specifications (cover page only) 

included?

3. Are all non-Prime/OEM/Commercial specifications in their entirety 

included?

4. Are all applicable specifications for all sub-assemblies included?

NOTES & COMMENTS:

G. SUB-TIER SUPPLIER INFORMATION: (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Is a statement provided by the proposed supplier stating that all 

sub-tier suppliers are Prime/OEM/Government approved?

2. Is each required specification matched with an approved sub-tier 

supplier?

3. Is the proposed supplier certified for the remaining processes?

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-6

H. Quality History (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Is there a summary of Deficiency Reports for the CAGE code 

provided?

2. Is there a summary of Deficiency Reports provided for the sub-tier 

suppliers?

3. Is there a summary of Deficiency Reports provided for the similar 

item?

4. Is a summary of other quality history provided?

5. Was corrective action for the deficiencies provided?

(List any concerns below)

6. Evaluate summary of QA Deficiency Reports and note any 

concerns below. If issues noted in summary of deficiency reports, 

pull and evaluate full Deficiency Reports and analyze.

7. Have there been any major quality problems with either item? (If 

YES, identify)

NOTES & COMMENTS:

I. SIMILAR ITEM DRAWINGS (For Cat II Only) (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO

1. Is a parts list(s) included?

2. Are all drawing sheets/frames included?

3. Are all Forging and/or Casting Drawings included?

4. Are drawings legible? (If NO, list drawings/sheets/frames 

required)

5. Is the material identified?

List material(s): 

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-7

J. SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 

SUBJECT/SIMILAR ITEMS

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

(Explain any NO answers), (If multiple similar items submitted, at 

least one similar item must comply with each question below) YES NO

1. Are the items similar in size/shape?

2. Are the items similar in function?

3. Do the items operate in similar environments?

4. Are the items made of the same material?

5. Do the items require similar Manufacturing/Inspection/ROMM 

processes?

6. Are the items similar in surface finish?

7. Are tolerance requirements similar?

NOTES & COMMENTS:

K. PURCHASE ORDERS and SHIPPING DOCUMENTS (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO

1. Was the order completed within the last 3 years (for CSIs)?

2. Was the order completed within the last 7 years (for CAIs)?

3. Is a complete copy of the Purchase Order (including latest 

amendment) included?

4. Is a complete copy of Shipping Documents included?

5. Was the order completed (and not terminated)? (If NO, explain)

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-8

L. PROCESS/OPERATION SHEETS (POS/OP SHEETS) and 

TRAVELERS

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Is flow of the subject part clearly documented on the traveler?

2. Are the manufacturing operations detailed and in the proper 

sequence?

3. Are ALL operation sheets included?

(Travelers or Routers alone are NOT sufficient)

4. Can the proposed supplier control the special processes required 

of the item?

5. Are process/operation sheets complete?

6. Are proposed process/operation sheets included for a category II 

package?

7. Do POS/OP sheet dimensions comply with drawing dimensions?

8. Were the Process/Op sheets and/or travelers written by proposed 

supplier?

a. Are the proposed supplier's name, address, and CAGE on top of 

every page?

b. Are sub-tier suppliers identified by name, address, and CAGE in 

each applicable operation?

c. Do sub-tier supplier steps clearly identify process or procedure?

d. Do POS/Op sheets give detailed dimensions, callout specific 

drawing references, and/or include operation sketches as called 

out?

e. For assemblies:

1) Are sub-component suppliers identified? 

2) Are sub-component suppliers Government approved? 

NOTES & COMMENTS:

M. INSPECTION METHOD SHEETS (IMS) (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

Explain any concerns below. YES NO N/A

1. Are complete IMS included?

2. Are the IMS detailed and in the proper sequence?

3. Are IMS dimensions within drawing dimensions?

4. Are actual measurements noted as well as drawing dimensions? If 

not, the cognizant Service ESA should verify the data provided on 

the IMS to ensure that all were required by the prime 

contractor/other Service. Include findings in comment section below.

5. Are units of measure called out on IMS?

6. Are units of measure on the IMS the same as on the drawing?

7. Does the supplier adequately document inspections?

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-9

N. PRIME CONTRACTOR'S QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 

REPORT

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Was a Quality Rating from a Prime/OEM provided?

2. Is the submitted Quality Rating from the past 12 months?

DATE: 

3. Is the rating satisfactory?

4. Does the rating show any negative trends?

 Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

O. LICENSEE AGREEMENT (If Applicable) (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Was a Licensee Agreement referenced as a basis for approval?

2. Will the Prime/OEM retain configuration control of the item?

3. Does the Licensee Agreement describe that the prime/OEM will 

provide technical support to the Licensee?

4. Is the Licensee required to purchase only from Prime/OEM 

approved suppliers?

5. Will the prime/OEM provide support in case of a mishap involving 

a licensed item?

6. Is the Prime/OEM required to approve Class I ECPs and major 

deviations/waivers?

7. Is the Prime/OEM required to approve Class II ECPs and minor 

deviations/waivers?

8. Does the License agreement delegate MRB authority?

 (Explain any concerns below)

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-10

P. VALUE ADDED (BY PRIME OR OEM) (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Did the supplier list any value added that the prime or OEM 

provides?

 Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

Q. GOVERNMENT/PRIME CONTRACTOR SURVEYS: (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Has a DoD site survey been conducted within the past 7 years?

If so, date: 

2. Have there been any other surveys by other government 

agencies?

If yes, who? 

3. Have there been any surveys performed by the prime contractor 

within the past 7 years?

If so, date: 

4. Is a copy of the survey included in the SAR?

5. Were findings noted?

6. Were supplier survey results acceptable?

7. Was effective correction action (CA) taken by supplier?

8. Is a follow up site survey or Pre-Award survey necessary? 

(Explain)

NOTES & COMMENTS:

R. PRE-QUALIFICATION TEST PLANS (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Was further testing required? 

If YES, did the supplier provide test plans?

2. Were the test plans adequate?

3. Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-11

S. TEST RESULTS (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Has qualification or other testing already been completed?

2. Was level of testing adequate?

3. Were test results provided?

If yes, were they acceptable?

NOTES & COMMENTS:

T. MASTER TOOLING CERTIFICATIONS (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Is any special tooling required?

2. If yes, does the supplier possess or have access to the special 

tooling?

3. Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

U. GOVERNMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE COMPLIANCE (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Can the supplier comply with all quality assurance provisions and 

testing requirements as listed in the solicitation/contract?

2. Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-12

V. FAA PMA LETTER or Supplement (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Was the proposed supplier approved by the FAA?

2. Does the letter show the platform and model that the item was 

approved for?

3. Does the using Service(s) use the same or military derivative 

version of the same platform and model?

4. Has information been provided which describes the basis for the 

FAA’s PMA approval and is it consistent with the category 

submitted?

5. Has the proposed supplier provided design packages and test 

results?

6. Is the proposed supplier the actual manufacturer or a 

dealer/distributor? (note in comments section below)

7. Has the proposed supplier provided the approved item in sufficient 

quantity to develop a statistically sound supplier history?

8. Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

W. ALTERNATE ITEM SOURCE COMPONENT PURCHASE 

ORDERS

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Were the source component parts used for the reverse 

engineering purchased from the Government?

If YES, when: 

2. If parts not purchased from Government, were they purchased 

from the Prime, OEM, or Government approved supplier?

If YES, who: 

If YES, when: 

3. Were the source component parts purchased to the latest revision 

of the Prime/OEM data?

4. Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

X. STATISTICAL DATA (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Does the statistical data used to derive the alternate item source 

design appear acceptable?

2. Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-13

Y. REVERSE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PLAN

(EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Does the plan included provide acceptable detail?

2. Does it adequately describe all aspects of the proposed reverse 

engineering design, materials, critical characteristics, critical 

inspection processes, and critical manufacturing processes?

Explain any concerns below.

3. Will the proposed plan allow for successful reverse engineering of 

the subject item?

Explain any concerns below.

NOTES & COMMENTS:

Z. ALTERNATE APPLICATION ENVIRONMENT (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

1. Was the commercial environment information provided with 

adequate detail?

2. Does the commercial application operate in similar environments?

3. Does the commercial application experience similar loads and/or 

weights?

4. Does the commercial application undergo similar safety 

assessments as would be performed in military environment?

NOTES & COMMENTS:
16 March 2011

B-14

IV. ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SUBJECT ITEM

(evaluator to complete and initial) (EVALUATOR INITIALS)

YES NO N/A

A. Are there any known engineering changes (CIDs, ECPs, DCNs, EOs, 

etc.) proposed but not yet released in-work affecting the item?

B. Are there any engineering investigations that affect this item?

(If YES, provide details)

C. Has the supplier demonstrated the capability to perform and comply 

with all the special processes and specification required for the 

manufacture of the item?

D. If item C is NO, has the proposed supplier listed prime approved 

sub-tier suppliers?

E. Are there any performance characteristics, which cannot be verified 

by Non-destructive Inspection (NDI)/NDT?

F. Are all critical characteristics and processes IDENTIFIED?

G. Would you specify any substantiation or qualification requirements 

for this item? (If YES, identity)

H. Evaluate the potential failure modes and the effect of each in 

COMMENTS below.

I. Are there any other matters of concern? (Identify)

NOTES & COMMENTS:

PACKAGE CONTROL NUMBER: 

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS:

Note: Use additional comment sheets as needed. 

 <<<The reviewing activity may add any information deemed necessary.>>>
16 March 2011

C-1

Exhibit C

Site Survey Checklist 

Manufacturing, Repair & Overhaul (R&O), and Quality Assurance (QA)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNIVERSAL SITE SURVEY CHECKLIST

DoD Site Survey Number: 

INSTRUCTIONS: This plan is to serve as a guideline for Department of Defense (DoD) personnel conducting vendor 

site surveys. The categories listed should be selected in accordance with the solicitation or procurement document 

quality requirements. Areas highlighted in blue are marked to allow the Vendor to provide required information 

prior to commencement of the site survey. 

This report, when completed, will become a permanent record of the survey activity.

DoD Site Survey Number = (MFR CAGE Code) - (Lead Service AR/AF/NA/DC) - (month and last two digits of year) e.g. 

81996-AR-0804.

CHECKLIST CATEGORIES

Quality Manual/Procedure/etc. Section and Paragraph - List/identify all areas where the requirement is 

established in the Contractor's Quality Manual, procedures, or other document(s).

Evidence - Witness or verify compliance with the requirement. List at least one specific Part Number, Serial Number, 

Certification Number, Purchase Order Number, etc. as applicable. Write "N/A" in the block if the element is not 

applicable and “NR if the element was not reviewed

Pass/Fail - Indicate whether the Quality program and evidence satisfies the review element.

COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS

PURPOSE OF VISIT: Quality Audit START DATE: COMPLETION DATE: 

CONTRACT/SOLICITATION/ETC. NO. PCO NSN or PART NUMBER(S)

COMPANY POINTS OF CONTACT TITLE

GENERAL INFORMATION

PRODUCTS OR SERVICES OFFERED

TOTAL PLANT AREA SQUARE FEET

NO. OF BUILDINGS

IS FACILITY OWNED OR LEASED?

NO. OF PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES

NO. OF DESIGN ENGINEERS

NO. OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS

NO. OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL 

OTHERS
16 March 2011

C-2

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE LEVEL (Average years)

PRODUCTION

ENGINEERS

QUALITY

REMARKS

List of Attendees

Name Organization Phone Number E-mail Address
16 March 2011

C-3

DoD Site Survey No. ________ 

Department of Defense Universal Site-Survey Checklist

Item 

No. Review Item Tab

1.0 Production/Contract History

1.1 Company Brochure Yes /No 

Company Web Page: 

1.2 What parts have been produced/overhauled/repaired for the U. S. Government, and 

when

See attached list

What parts have been produced/overhauled/repaired for the OEM.

1.3 For whom were the items produced/overhauled/repaired:

1.4 List OEM Quality rating(s):

1.5 Quality Management System standard (list applicable specification/certification(s) and 

attach certificate(s))

Third/second/self-certified 

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

2.0 Production Engineering and Planning

2.1 Production Planning Quality Manual/Procedure (QM/P), etc. Section and Paragraph. 

2.1.1 1) Policy and procedures in place for 

production/ROMM planning 

2) Is staffing of production/ROMM planning 

adequate

2.1.2 Historical Records

1) Are historical data records maintained

2) Are Service peculiar aircraft logs maintained

3) Other aircraft log records (identify)

2.1.3 Prime furnished data

1) Is the vendor on prime approved distribution list 

for specifications and/or drawing revisions 

2) ROMM Manuals
16 March 2011

C-4

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

2.1.4 Government furnished data

1) Are contractor’s procedures adequate to verify 

compliance to depot/NAVAIR/AMCOM/AFMC technical 

publications, Local Engineering Specifications 

(LES)/Local Process Specifications (LPS)/Engineering 

Change Proposals (ECP), Maintenance Engineering 

Orders (MEO), and Manual Change Revisions (MCR)

Remarks:

2) Are contractor’s procedures adequate to verify 

currency of drawings, depot/NAVAIR/AMCOM/AFMC 

technical publications, LES, LPS, ECP, MEO and MCRs 

Remarks

2.2 Production Control QM/P:

2.2.1 Who does the scheduling on new parts:

2.2.2 Serialization

1) Are Critical Safety Items (CSIs) serialized or 

identified by lot/batch number for traceability

2) Is there a procedure for coordinating serial 

number (S/N) assignment with the procuring activity

3) Does S/N or lot/batch identifier provide 

traceability to inspection/process that involve Critical 

Characteristics 

4) Are S/Ns controlled to prevent duplication

5) Are S/Ns reported to PCO in accordance with 

contractual requirements

2.2.3 Do records provide the degree of traceability required by the contract for 

verification of the following: 

2.2.3.1 Material

2.2.3.2 Manufacture

2.2.3.3 Special Processes

2.2.3.4 Personnel Certification

2.2.3.5 Variability Control Charts (if applicable)

2.2.3.6 Assembly

2.2.3.7 Inspection of Critical Characteristics

2.2.4 Do the routers/shop travelers identify the parts to which they apply

2.2.4.1 Serial Number or Lot/Batch

2.2.4.2 Contract Number

2.2.4.3 Purchase Order Number

2.2.4.4 Sub-Vendors Identification 

2.2.4.5 Specifications Used

2.2.4.6 Tooling Used
16 March 2011

C-5

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

2.2.5 Production Lot Identification for Traceability to Customers

1) Are production lots identified so they can be 

traced to customers

2.2.6 Does the routing/shop traveler document specify:

2.2.6.1 Critical operations/processes

2.2.6.2 Operations/process that must be done in proper 

sequence

2.2.6.3 Operations/process where sequence is not 

necessary

2.2.6.4 Critical Characteristics

2.2.7 Is lot size count maintained:

2.2.7.1 Are changes due to scrap, split lots, and parts held 

for disposition documented

2.2.7.2

How: 

2.2.8 Process Control

2.2.8.1

If SPC or other quality techniques have not been 

authorized for critical characteristics, is 100% 

inspection in place for government identified critical 

characteristics?

2.2.8.2

If Statistical Process Control is in place for critical 

characteristics, was SPC approved by the procuring 

activity?

2.2.9 Delivered non-conforming CSIs

2.2.9.1

Is there a procedure for notification to the 

Administrative and Procuring Contract Officers (ACO 

& PCO) of any delivered non-conforming CSIs as 

soon as practicable, but no later than 72 hours?

2.2.9.2

Do procedures require that the contract, part, and 

serial numbers be identified if non-conforming parts 

are delivered

2.2.10 Purchasing Records

2.2.10.1 Do vendor purchase orders (POs) identify critical 

characteristics?

2.2.10.2 Do vendor purchase orders (POs) reference QESTD-1 and/or other applicable Critical Item program 

documents?

2.2.10.3 Are POs available for review by the appropriate 

Government Official

2.2.11 Retention of Records

1) Are procedures in place that require all Critical 

Item records be maintained for at least ten years 

after final payment.
16 March 2011

C-6

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

2.2.12 Government Furnished Material (GFM)

Do the contractor’s procedures include:

2.2.12.1 Examination upon receipt to detect transit damage

2.2.12.2 Inspection for completeness and proper type

2.2.12.3

Periodic inspection and precautions to assure 

adequate storage conditions are maintained, to 

guard against damage from handling and 

deterioration during storage, and to segregate it in 

a secure, controlled area

2.2.12.4 Functional testing, as required by contract, to 

determine satisfactory operation

2.2.12.5 Identification and protection from improper use or 

disposition

2.2.12.6 Verification of Quantity

2.2.12.7

Procedures to report damaged/non-conforming GFM 

and to segregate it in a secure, controlled area 

pending disposition instructions

2.2.13 Contractor Scrap Rate

1) What is the contractor scrap rate? 

%

2.3 Production/Manufacturing Methods and Processes QM/P:

2.3.1 List of in-house processes (e.g. MPI, LPI, x-ray, brazing, welding, heat 

treat, shot peen, metallurgical lab, chemical lab, plating processes 

(identify), other coating capabilities (identify), etc.), along with the 

process/spec number, approving authority and date:

2.3.2 Are there established and documented procedures 

for internal audits of in-house processes

2.3.3 Are in-house process audits scheduled

2.3.4 Are all in-house process audit findings and 

corrective actions documented
16 March 2011

C-7

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

2.4 Engineering Capabilities QM/P:

2.4.1 Drawings, Specifications and Government Specifications/Standards, Overhaul and Repair procedures

1) Where are they kept: 

2) How are they updated

3) Are they controlled

4) Are old revisions retained, marked accordingly, 

and properly segregated

5) Are the drawings stored in a controlled 

environment (e.g. climate, fireproof)

6) Is there a procedure for specifically addressing 

conflicts in critical characteristics that require 

notification of the procuring activity

2.4.2 Material Review Board Actions

1) How are MRBs handled:

2) Do you have separate secured MRB storage areas 

(Gov/Civ)

3) Are non-conforming critical characteristics 

dispositioned properly

4) Are there documented procedures in place for 

proper disposition of non-conforming critical 

characteristics to the procuring activity

2.4.3 Engineering Changes

2.4.3.1 How are they handled:

2.4.3.2 When are they introduced to the floor: 

3.0 Industrial Resources

3.1 Facilities and Equipment QM/P:

3.1.1 Capabilities:

3.1.1.1 Facilities List

3.1.1.2 Equipment List: 

3.1.1.3 Special Test Stands/Capabilities:

3.1.1.4 What percentage of production capability 

%

3.1.2 Maintenance

3.1.2.1 What type of facilities and equipment maintenance plan do you have in place

3.1.2.2 What are the procedures for performing/scheduling 

maintenance?

3.1.3 General Housekeeping

3.1.3.1 Does the quality manual have a cleanliness 

requirement?

3.1.3.2 Does the facility meet the established cleanliness 

requirement?
16 March 2011

C-8

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

3.2 Facility Test Equipment and Tooling QM/P:

3.2.1 Who controls and operates test equipment: 

3.2.2 Who manufactures your special tools and fixtures 

3.2.3 How are the tooling and fixtures stored and maintained: 

3.2.4 Is any tooling within the facility owned by the Prime (Sikorsky, Boeing, etc.) 

Yes/No

1) If yes, is the Prime's tooling intended to be used on Government contracts? 

Yes/No

3.2.5 Is any tooling within the facility owned by the Government? 

Yes/No

3.2.5.1 If yes, how is the tooling stored and segregated? 

3.2.5.2 If yes, is tooling used only on specified contract?

3.2.6 Is tooling identified on detailed process/operation 

sheet

3.2.7 Tolerance of Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE)

3.2.7.1 Does M&TE discriminate to the degree necessary to 

assure the accuracy of the critical characteristics

3.2.7.2 Is M&TE capable of meeting the total tolerance 

spread (where applicable)

3.3 Certification of Personnel

3.3.1 Are personnel certified to perform work and/or 

inspection on CSIs

3.3.2 Is there a system for tracking personnel 

certifications

3.3.3 Training

3.3.3.1 Is there a structured and documented training 

program?

3.3.3.2 Is there a structured apprentice program? Yes/No

3.4 Automation QM/P:

3.4.1 Does the facility have a Computer Aided 

Design/Machining (CAD/CAM) system? 

Yes/No

3.4.1.1 If yes, what CAD/CAM system and version is used? 

3.4.1.2 Who manages the CAD/CAM system:

3.4.1.3 Who has control of the CAD/CAM system: 

3.4.2 Who does the Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) programming: 

3.4.3 Are back-ups of CNC masters made/kept in different 

location in case of fire 

Yes/No

3.5 Configuration Management QM/P:

3.5.1 Are procedures established and maintained for 

configuration baselines?

3.5.2 Do Maintenance and Overhaul requirements 

address all current configurations and upgrades

3.5.3 Do government and commercial products require 

segregation?

Yes/No

3.5.4 If yes, are government and commercial products segregated?
16 March 2011

C-9

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

4.0 Quality Assurance Program Compliance

4.1 Organization QM/P:

4.1.1 To whom does quality report?

4.1.2 Does the contractor have a written quality policy 

and procedures detailing responsibilities for each 

major or critical function

4.1.3 Does the contractor maintain the following functions 

as part of the inspection or quality program

4.1.3.1 Design or Engineering

4.1.3.2 Incoming Inspection

4.1.3.3 In-process Inspection

4.1.3.4 Final Inspection

4.1.3.5 Quality audit function performing internal audits

4.1.3.6 Quality audit function performing initial sub-tier 

supplier audits

4.1.3.7 Quality audit function performing production subtier supplier audits

4.1.3.8 Does the contractor operate separate quality 

systems for government and commercial products 

or do they fall under one quality system? 

Explain.

4.1.3.9 Does contractor have a procedure to ensure that 

the customer is notified of all changes in the quality 

system which affects that customer's contracts?

4.1.3.10 Other: (Describe)

4.2 Engineering, Drawings & Changes QM/P:

4.2.1

Does the contractor have written instructions or 

procedures for incorporating customer's contract 

specifications into shop work orders

4.2.2 Are there adequate procedures for submitting 

deviations or other variation requests

4.2.3

Does the engineering or quality department alert 

the purchasing department of special requirements 

to be imposed upon sub-tier suppliers?

4.2.4 Is there a system to control the issue of drawings 

and specifications?

4.2.5 Is there a system to ensure all drawings and 

specifications are updated to the latest revision?

4.2.6

Does the contractor have a positive method to recall 

and replace drawings and specification with latest 

changes?
16 March 2011

C-10

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

4.2.7 Manufacturing Planning

4.2.7.1 Are critical characteristics measured and annotated 

prior to passing the inspection points

4.2.7.2 Who are the Configuration Control Board (CCB) members: 

4.2.7.3

Are changes to planning that affect critical 

characteristics processed through internal CCB and 

approved via the Contracting Officer

4.2.7.4

Are changes to planning that do not affect critical 

characteristics processed and approved by the 

internal CCB

4.2.7.5 Is planning frozen for critical items per contract 

requirements?

4.2.7.6 Are critical characteristics identified

4.2.7.7 Are inspection points annotated

4.2.7.8 Are procedures for changing critical characteristics 

frozen planning flowed down to subcontractors

4.3 Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) QM/P:

4.3.1 Are written procedures and methods for the calibration, control of M&TE available?

4.3.1.1 Is there a recall system to assure that calibrated 

M&TE are recalibrated on or prior to expiration

4.3.1.2 Are records maintained for the calibration of each 

M&TE used to accept products

4.3.1.3 Are all M&TE identified with a calibration label?

4.3.1.4 Do procedures state how calibration frequencies are 

determined?

4.3.1.5

Do procedures state that production tools used for 

inspection/acceptance/validation are under recall 

system?

4.3.1.6

Are procedures in place to ensure that personally 

owned M&TE are not used to perform acceptance 

inspection?

4.3.2 Are calibration standards maintained and are they accurate for their intended use

4.3.2.1

Are the calibration standards used traceable to the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) or other cognizant Service ESA approved 

standards?

4.3.2.2

Are certificates of compliance available attesting to 

NIST (or other cognizant Service ESA approved 

standard) certification?

4.3.2.3 Are there procedures for internal notification of out 

of tolerance conditions?

4.3.2.4 Is calibrated M&TE used in controlled environments 

which ensure accurate measurements?

4.3.2.5 Are there instructions available for operating 

inspection equipment?
16 March 2011

C-11

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

4.4 Control of Purchases & Receipt Inspection QM/P:

4.4.1 Are there systems for the company to identify 

externally approved Sub-Tier Suppliers (e.g. Prime 

approved sources, customer approved sources, etc.)?

How: 

4.4.2 Are lists of externally approved sub-tier suppliers 

available to the purchasing personnel?

4.4.3 Does the Quality Department review purchase orders 

to ensure all necessary quality requirements are 

specified?

4.4.4 Does the Quality Department review purchase orders 

to ensure that approved sub-tier suppliers are 

specified?

4.4.5 Do existing purchase orders contain requirements for the following (as applicable):

4.4.5.1 Mercury-Free Material

4.4.5.2 Government Source Inspection

4.4.5.3 Heat Codes and Traceability

4.4.5.4 Material Certifications

4.4.5.5 Marking

4.4.5.6 Item criticality

4.4.6

Are purchase orders available to the incoming 

inspection department?

4.4.7

Does the incoming inspection department have 

access to the drawing revision as called out on the 

purchase order?

4.4.8 Are written inspection instructions and acceptance 

standards issued to the incoming inspector

4.4.9 Are procedures in place to verify sub-tier suppliers' 

product prior to use or processing?

4.4.10

When mechanical and chemical tests are required by 

contract, are the reports checked to assure test 

results conform to specifications

4.4.11

Is incoming materiel traceable to the mechanical and 

chemical test reports (Heat Number, Heat Code, 

etc.)?

4.4.12 Are there established schedules and frequencies for 

performing material verification checks?

4.4.13 Are records kept to show acceptance and rejection 

criteria of incoming materials

4.4.14 Are records kept to show acceptance and rejection of 

incoming materials

4.4.15 Are materials properly identified as to inspection 

status
16 March 2011

C-12

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

4.4.16

Are non-conforming materials identified as such and 

held in a segregated and secured area until 

disposition can be made?

4.4.17 Are sampling levels adjusted according to inspection 

history

4.4.18 Are process averages maintained in order to control 

Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) assignments

4.4.19 Does contractor have a written procedure to ensure 

material traceability by sub-tier suppliers

4.4.20 Are contractor's purchase orders made available for 

review by the Government

4.5 Special Processes QM/P:

4.5.1

Does the contractor have adequate written 

procedures for control of special processes, in-house 

and/or at sub-tier suppliers (e.g., welding, brazing, 

NDT-PT, MT, UT, & plating, etc.)?

4.5.2

Does the contractor have procedures to ensure that 

approved special process suppliers are used, as 

required by the customer

4.5.3

Are adequate methods provided to ensure 

compliance to special processes and respective 

specifications?

4.5.4 Are special process operator(s) (such as welders and 

NDT examiners) qualification records maintained

4.5.5

Are special process operator(s) (such as welders and 

NDT examiners) qualification records available to the 

customer for review?

4.5.6

Have there have been reviews, certifications, and 

approvals of special processes by independent review 

organizations (e.g., NADCAP) or approvals by 

Prime/OEM companies

4.6 Control of Manufacturing and In-Process Inspections QM/P:

4.6.1 Do work instructions specify tooling, operation 

sequence, methods and technical requirements

4.6.2

If a manufacturing lot consists of multiple heats, are 

individual heats segregated or identified to preclude 

loss of material traceability

4.6.3

Are there instructions to provide for control and 

maintenance of material identification and markings 

during the manufacturing operations

4.6.4 Are the supplier's scrap control procedures written 

and defined?

4.6.5 Is first production piece and/or in-process inspection 

being applied?

4.6.6

Are there written inspection instructions with 

acceptance standards issued to each inspection 

station
16 March 2011

C-13

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

4.6.7 Are all inspection records on file

4.6.8

Are non-conforming materials or items identified and 

promptly segregated from acceptable 

materials/items?

4.6.9

When non-conforming materials or items are 

segregated from acceptable materials/items, is the 

reason for the non-conformance described?

4.6.10 Is reworked material submitted for re-inspection?

4.7 Audits

4.7.1 Are procedures for internal audits of CSI frozen 

manufacturing planning established and documented

4.7.2 Is the proposed supplier required to conduct internal 

audits, when applicable?

4.7.3 Are internal audits scheduled (e.g. start of 

production, annually thereafter)

4.7.4 Are all audit findings and corrective actions 

documented

4.7.5 Are external audits performed on-site at 

subcontractor facilities?

4.7.6 If no, are audits conducted via mail questionnaires?

4.8 Final Inspection of Completed Material QM/P

4.8.1 Are written inspection instructions and acceptance 

standards provided to final inspection

4.8.2 Are drawings and/or specifications available to final 

inspection?

4.8.3

Are procedures in place to ensure that final 

inspection uses the contract specified drawing 

revision?

4.8.4

Are contract marking requirements verified at final 

inspection (nameplates, material traceability marking, 

etc.)?

4.8.5

Are Inspection Method Sheets used to verify that all 

required inspections have been accomplished 

(including documentation & certification)

4.8.6 Are the inspection records adequate?

4.8.7 Are materials adequately identified as to inspection 

status

4.8.8

When the contract allows for sampling inspection , is 

the supplier using a sampling plan as approved by 

the customer?

4.8.9

When sampling is used, are process averages 

maintained in order to control AQL assignments

4.8.10 When sampling is used, are sampling levels adjusted 

according to inspection history

4.8.11 Are inspection stamps controlled
16 March 2011

C-14

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

4.9 Packing, Storage, and Delivery QM/P:

4.9.1

Are there adequate written instructions for 

packaging, marking, and shipping provided the 

shipping personnel

4.9.2 Are the customer marking instructions issued to the 

shipping personnel

4.9.3

Is there a checklist to ensure all required 

documentation and software items are included with 

each shipment

4.9.4

Are interior and exterior containers properly marked 

to the contract requirements/clauses to identify the 

content

4.9.5 Are shelf-life items properly identified and controlled 

(e.g., first-in, first-out control)

4.9.6 Is the storage area adequate to prevent deterioration 

or damage

4.9.7 Are military packaging tests performed when 

required by contract and documented

4.9.8 Are military packaging test results documented?

4.9.9 When clean room conditions are required by the 

contract is adequate control exercised

4.9.10 Are stored raw materials properly segregated, by 

type, class, etc., and identified for traceability

4.9.11

Are delivery and shipping records maintained by or 

crossed referenced by heat, batch, lot, etc. to ensure 

forward traceability and material recovery

4.9.12 Do instructions ensure that proper preservation is 

applied to completed item

4.10 Non-conforming Material and Corrective Action QM/P:

4.10.1 Are there adequate procedures for submitting 

deviations, or other variation requests

4.10.2 Are there written procedures specifying definitive 

time frames for handling defective materials and 

reporting corrective action - MRB Weekly

4.10.3 Are customer complaints recorded and readily 

accessible

4.10.4 Is action taken to promptly document and correct all 

conditions of non-conforming materials to the 

government

4.10.5 Are non-conforming materials promptly identified and 

segregated

4.10.6 Are customer complaints and records of defective 

materials maintained for feedback data to prevent 

recurrences and effect quality improvement

4.10.7 Are there procedures in place to mutilate material 

condemned following MRB review, as required by the 

contract?
16 March 2011

C-15

SUB-TIER SUPPLIER QUALIFICATION

Item 

No. Review Item Evidence Pass/Fail Tab

5.1 Do records provide the degree of traceability required 

by the contract for verification of the following: 

5.1.1

Component Procurement was for New, Sealed and 

Unused ?

5.1.2 Was Stock traceable to the OEM?

5.2

Certification(s)of Conformance and attach 

certificate(s))

5.2.1 Does the Supplier have AS 9100 Certificate?

5.3 Quality Manual

5.3.1

Were the component dimensional characteristics 

obtained from a statistically significant sample?

5.3.2

Are critical characteristics measurements (Kpc) 

monitored via SPC?

5.3.3

Are critical characteristics measurements (CpK) 

monitored?

5.3.4

If any CpK values changes are corrective actions 

taken?

5.3.5

Are initial production CpK values submitted to the 

cognizant Service ESA?
16 March 2011

C-16

Finding Report

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SITE SURVEY REPORT

Survey Finding Number______________________ 

Classification__________

INSTRUCTIONS: This report form is to serve as a record of findings noted by Department of Defense (DoD) 

personnel conducting vendor Site surveys and may be used for follow-up of corrective actions. This form, when 

completed, will become a permanent record of the survey activity and will not normally be distributed to other 

non-DoD activities. 

Finding Number = (DoD Site Survey Number) - (sequential number, beginning with 01) e.g. 81996-AR-0804-

05.

Finding Classifications:

Critical - A non-conformance that negatively impacts a critical characteristic or that would result in hazardous 

or unsafe conditions for individuals using, maintaining or depending upon the supplies or services, or is likely to 

prevent performance of a major end item, or major part thereof.

Major - A non-conformance, other than critical, that is likely to result in failure or to materially reduce the 

usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose.

Minor - A non-conformance that is not likely to materially reduce the usability of the supplies or Services for 

their intended purpose, or operation of the supplies or services.

Observation - A condition or circumstance which does not currently meet the aforementioned criteria, but 

holds the potential of causing a deficiency in the future, or a finding that could be of value for quality 

improvement.

Title: Item No: Date:

Finding:

Auditor's Signature: Date:

Auditee's Signature: Date:

Corrective Action:

Corrective Action Submitted By: Date:

Corrective Action Accepted By: Date:

Corrective Action Verification (DoD): Date:

Remarks:
16 March 2011

C-17

Site Survey Summary

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

UNIVERSAL SITE SURVEY SUMMARY

Site Survey Number ____________________________

Findings

Critical

Major

Minor

Observations

Total

Remarks:
16 March 2011

D-1

Exhibit D

Surplus Procurements Checklist

The following information should be submitted with offers of SURPLUS 

SUPPLIES.

 (1) The SURPLUS SUPPLIES are new, unused, and were manufactured by 

(insert name, CAGE code, and address) under government contract number 

(insert government contract number):

 (2) The SURPLUS SUPPLIES were purchased by the offeror from the 

Government selling agency or other source identified below. If the supplies were 

purchased from the Government by a source other than the offeror, identify that 

source. (If complete information is not available, attach an explanation as to 

when, where and how the property was acquired). Provide the following:

SELLING AGENCY _____________

CONTRACT DATE ______________

CONTRACT NUMBER SOURCE___________

 

 (3) The SURPLUS SUPPLIES --

 (i) [ ] have, [ ] have not been altered, modified or refurbished;

 (ii) [ ] have, [ ] have not been 100% inspected for correct part 

number and for absence of corrosion or any defects; and

 (iii) [ ] do, [ ] do not contain cure-dated components.

 (4) The SURPLUS SUPPLIES --

 [ ] will, [ ] will not be reconditioned, refurbished or altered. If the 

supplies contain cure-dated components, identify components to be replaced and 

the applicable rebuild standard. If the SURPLUS SUPPLIES are to be 

reconditioned or altered, attach complete description of the work to be done.

For SURPLUS SUPPLY ITEMS identified by manufacturer's code and part number, 

furnish the following information:

 (1) Identify the applicable specification/drawings in possession of the 

offeror:

SPEC./DRAWING NO. _____________

REVISION (IF ANY) ______________
16 March 2011

D-2

DATE __________

(NOTE: The offeror is responsible for furnishing supplies conforming to the 

requirements of the purchase description, even though the applicable 

specifications/drawings are not available.)

 (2) The offeror [ ] has, [ ] does not have the SURPLUS SUPPLIES. If 

the offeror does not have the SURPLUS SUPPLIES, attach an explanation as to 

how the offered quantities will be secured, their present location, the basis for 

the information provided in paragraph (a)(1) above, and where a pre-award 

survey of the supplier may be performed.

 (3) If SURPLUS SUPPLY ITEMS have data plates attached, furnish copy of 

information contained thereon.

 (4) If the SURPLUS SUPPLY ITEMS are marked with serial/part numbers, 

indicate these numbers:

If the SURPLUS SUPPLY ITEMS are not marked with serial/part numbers, the 

offeror must be able to identify the items by manufacturer's drawings or other 

data acceptable to the Government inspector.

 (5) The offered SURPLUS SUPPLY ITEM(s) --

 [ ] have, [ ] have not been previously packaged, and

 [ ] are, [ ] are not in their original package. If the original package 

is being used, state here all markings and data, including contract number, cited 

on the package.

The offeror agrees that in the event of award and notwithstanding the provisions 

of this solicitation, inspection and acceptance of the SURPLUS SUPPLIES will be 

performed at origin or destination subject to all applicable provisions for origin or 

destination inspection.

Failure to provide the information requested by this clause may require rejection 

of the offer for failure to meet the requirements of the solicitation.