DLAI 4155.2 

DLSC-LEQ 

17 Feb 99 

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION FOR DLA ICPs 

A. REFERENCES 

1. DLAD 4155.2, Quality Assurance Program for the Defense Logistics Agency 

Inventory Control Points (ICPs), 10 Oct 97. 

2. DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition, March 15 1996 and DoD 5000.2-R, Mandatory 

Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated 

Information System (MAIS) Acquisition Programs. 

3. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

4. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). 

5. DoD 4140.1-R, DoD Materiel Management Regulation. 

6. DLAD 4105.1, Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive. 

7. DLAD 4155.7, Quality Assurance Technical Development Program (QATDP) for 

DLA Inventory Control Points. 

8. DLAI 4155.7, The Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point (ICP) Quality 

Assurance Technical Development Program (QATDP) Course Catalog. 

9. DoD 4120.3-M, Defense Standardization Policies and Procedures. 

10. DLAD 4105.20, Product Verification Program for Inventory Control Points. 

11. DLAD/DLAI 4155.24, Product Quality Deficiency Report Program. 

B. PURPOSE 

1. This instruction implements the DoD Directives/Regulations and DLA Directives that 

relate to the Quality Assurance functional area. It provides recommended general 

procedures for the planning and implementation of Quality Assurance (QA) functions at 

DLA ICPs. The procedures contained in this instruction are not mandatory and are 

offered as guidance only. 

2. The basic objective of this instruction is to provide guidance to DLA ICP QA 

personnel including QA specialists, engineers, chemists, pharmacists and other people 

performing (or being trained to perform) functions that improve the quality of materiel. 

3. The guidance is provided to achieve quality management practices and procedures, 

which will: 
a. Recognize and remove those conditions, which contribute to, or cause deficient 

materiel. 

b. Assure product quality during the full range of logistics actions (including 

provisioning, planning, contracting, production, maintenance, and storage) rather than to 

detect poor quality after receipt by a DLA customer. 

c. Assure service quality during the full range of logistics actions including planning, 

contracting, and performance of the service. 

d. Assure an adequate contract quality data package to provide for satisfactory contractor 

and Government inspection performance. 

e. Achieve efficient feedback and use of quality and reliability data from all responsible 

sources. 

f. Achieve efficiency and economy in administration of quality programs in support of 

Provisioning, Planning, Contracting, Maintenance, Supply, Storage, and Commercial 

Activities. 

C. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE. 

This instruction is applicable to DLA ICPs involved with item and contract management 

of DLA managed items. 

D. DEFINITIONS 

1. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL). The quality level which, for the purposes of 

sampling inspection, is the limit of a satisfactory process average. 

2. Acceptance. The act of an authorized representative of the Government by which the 

Government assumes for itself, or as agent of another, ownership of existing and 

identified supplies tendered or approves specific services rendered, as partial or complete 

performance of the contract on the part of the contractor. 

3. Action Point. A focal point(s) identified within each Component (Military Service, 

Defense Agency, or GSA) responsible for receiving PQDRs from other Components, and 

for investigation and resolution of a reported product quality deficiency, including 

necessary collaboration with support points. Only an action point is authorized to 

transmit a deficiency across Component lines to a support point in another Component. 

4. ANSI. American National Standards Institute. 

5. Bid Sample. Sample to be furnished by the bidder to show the characteristics of the 

product offered in the bid. 

6. Category I Deficiency. A report of a critical defect which may cause death, injury, or 

severe occupational illness; could cause loss of, or major damage to, a weapon system; 

could critically restrict the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or 

which could result in a production line stoppage. 

7. Category II Deficiency. A report of a product quality deficiency, which does not meet 

the criteria set forth in Category I. 
8. Certificate of Conformance (CoC). A contractor's written statement, when authorized 

by contract, certifying that supplies or services are in conformance with contract 

requirements. 

9. Certificate of Quality Compliance (CoQC). A contractor's certification that provides 

specific detailed information and objective evidence that material offered for acceptance 

meets all contract and specification requirements. 

10. Commercial Item. Any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily 

used for non-governmental purposes, and that has been (offered to be/will be/or) sold, 

leased, or licensed to the general public. Additional definition with detail on 

modifications is provided in FAR, subpart 2.101. 

11. Contract. Any type of agreement or order for the acquisition of supplies or services. It 

includes awards and notice of award; contracts of a fixed-price, cost, cost-plus-fixed-fee, 

or incentive type; contracts providing for the issuance of job orders, task orders, and 

delivery orders thereunder; letter contracts; and purchase orders. 

12. Contract Administration Office (CAO). An office of DLA, or of a Military Service, or 

of FDA, USDA, or USDC, engaged in the performance of contract administration 

services, including QA, on Government contracts with private industry. Included in this 

definition are all geographic and in-plant DoD component organizations engaged in 

performance of field contract administration services. 

13. Contract Quality Assurance (CQA). A function by which the Government determines 

whether a contractor has fulfilled his contract obligations pertaining to quality and 

quantity. This function can be accomplished at source and/or destination and is related to 

and generally precedes the act of acceptance. 

14. Counterfeit Material/Unauthorized Product Substitution (CM/UPS). The 

misrepresentation of products furnished by contractors to the Government, including 

those items referred to as "bogus" parts, counterfeit parts, assemblies with unapproved 

components, and products with unauthorized remarking/over-branding. 

15. CM/UPS Disclosure. A written or verbal allegation that includes the possibility that 

contractors have furnished counterfeit or unauthorized product substitutions to the 

Government after the Government has signified its acceptance. Customer/Depot 

complaints are not CM/UPS disclosures. 

16. Critical Application Item. An item which is essential to the preservation of life in 

emergencies (e.g., parachutes, marine life preservers) or essential to end item or system 

performance, the failure of which would adversely affect the accomplishment of a 

military operation. 

17. Critical Nonconformance. A nonconformance that is likely to 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 vital agency mission. 
18. Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC). An organizational entity of 

DLA, comprised of a headquarters staff and a field organization of geographic and plant 

components, established to provide uniform field contract administration services for 

Government contracts with private industry. As used herein, the term applies specifically 

to Contract Administration Service (CAS) field components, including DCMC Districts 

(DCMDs), and area offices. 

19. Deviation. A written authorization, granted after contract award and prior to 

manufacture of an item, to depart from a particular performance or design requirement of 

a contract, specification, or referenced document, for a specific number of units or 

specified period of time. 

20. DLA Quality Assurance Program. A program designed to assure integrity, quality, 

and reliability of DLA purchased/managed supplies and services through the integration 

and coordination of all actions, which contribute to the delivery of supplies or services of 

the specified quality and reliability. 

21. Examination. An element of inspection consisting of investigations, without the use 

of specific laboratory applications or procedures, of supplies and services to determine 

conformance to those specified requirements, which can be determined by such 

investigations. Examination is generally nondestructive and includes, but is not limited 

to, visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, gustatory, and other investigations, simple physical 

manipulation, gaging, and measurement. 

22. Exhibit. The item reported as being deficient, or a sample item which represents the 

reported deficient condition, which can be analyzed to determine the possible cause of the 

defect. 

23. First Article Testing and Approval. The testing and/or examination of items submitted 

by a contractor prior to regular production on a contract or purchase order followed by 

the preparation/evaluation of attendant test reports. 

24. Flight Safety Critical Aircraft Part (FSCAP). Any part, assembly, or installation 

containing a critical characteristic whose failure, malfunction or absence could cause a 

catastrophic failure resulting in loss, or serious damage to the aircraft, or an 

uncommanded engine shutdown, resulting in an unsafe condition. 

25. FSCAP Critical Characteristic. Any feature through the life cycle of a FSCAP, such 

as dimension, tolerance, finish material or assembly, manufacturing or inspection 

process, operation, field maintenance or depot overhaul requirement, which if 

nonconforming, missing or degraded could cause the failure or malfunction of the 

FSCAP. 

26. Focal Point. A designated element or individual responsible for receiving and 

entering data for the Customer/Depot Complaint System and the Quality Evaluation 

Program. 
27. Inspection. The examination and testing of supplies or services (including, when 

appropriate, raw materials, components, and intermediate assemblies) to determine 

whether the supplies and services conform to technical requirements. 

28. ISO. International Organization for Standardization. 

29. Maintenance Instructions. Applicable technical document (contract specifications, 

Military Services' technical publications, or other published documents) with instructions 

that will be utilized to perform required maintenance of an item. 

30. Major Nonconformance. A nonconformance, 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. 

31. Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR). A requirement that is submitted 

by a Military Service to an ICP to perform logistics functions (including purchasing) for 

items that are not managed by that ICP. 

32. Minor Nonconformance. A nonconformance that is not likely to materially reduce the 

usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose, or is a departure from 

established standards, having little bearing on the effective use or operation of the 

supplies or services. 

33. Nonconformance. A departure from the requirements specified in the contract, 

specification, drawing or other approved product description. 

34. Nonconforming Material. Any item, part or product with one or more characteristics 

which depart from the requirements in the contract, specification, drawing, or other 

approved product description. 

35. Off-the-Shelf Item. An item produced and placed in stock by a 

distributor/manufacturer before receiving orders or contracts for its sale. The item may be 

commercial or produced to military/federal specifications or description. 

36. Originating Point. An Activity which finds a product quality deficiency and reports it. 

37. Packaging. The processes and procedures used to protect material from deterioration 

or damage during storage or transport. It includes cleaning, drying, preserving, packing, 

marking, and unitization. 

38. Post-award Conference. Meeting conducted by the Government to fully familiarize 

the contractor with the terms and conditions of the contract, to clarify any 

misunderstandings, and to discuss unsatisfactory quality history. 

39. Product Conformance. The subset of Quality Assurance which deals with assessment 

of post-manufacturing or post-service actions. Product Conformance includes the 

assessment of usability, conformance to purchase requirements, investigation of 

deficiencies, test and evaluations, determination of readiness impact, and product 

quality/usability feedback systems. 
40. Product Sample. Sample of the item required by the solicitation, which is submitted 

as part of an offeror's technical proposal. The sample permits visual examination of the 

offered item for the purpose of determining quality of workmanship and conformance to 

design and/or performance requirements. 

41. Product Quality Deficiency. A defect or nonconforming condition detected on new or 

newly reworked Government-owned products, premature equipment failures, and 

products in use that do not fulfill their expected purpose, operation or service due to 

deficiencies in design, specification, manufacturing, and workmanship. 

42. Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR). A report, message, or Standard Form 

(SF) 368, Product Quality Deficiency Report, prepared and processed in accordance with 

DLAD 4155.24, Product Quality Deficiency Report Program. 

43. Product Verification Program. A DLA program that establishes policy and procedures 

for the arranging, monitoring, and reporting of the results of, product testing and product 

examination/inspection. See DLAD 4105.20. 

44. Qualified Manufacturers List (QML). A listing of manufacturer's facilities that have 

been evaluated and determined to be acceptable based on the testing and approval of a 

sample specimen and conformance to the applicable specification. The QML includes 

appropriate products, processes, or technology identification, and test reference with the 

name and address of the manufacturer's plant. 

45. Qualified Products List (QPL). A listing of products that have met the qualification 

requirements stated in the applicable specification, including appropriate product 

identification and test of qualification reference with the name and plant address of the 

manufacturer and distributor, as applicable. 

46. Quality. The composite of materiel attributes including performance, features, and 

characteristics of a product or service to satisfy a given need. 

47. Quality Assurance. A planned and systematic pattern of all actions necessary to 

provide adequate confidence that adequate technical requirements are established, 

products and services conform to established technical requirements, and satisfactory 

performance is achieved. 

48. Quality Assurance Letters of Instruction (QALIs). Information or instruction provided 

to the activity responsible for Government CQA actions at source or destination for the 

purpose of assuring the integrity of DLA- procured products and services. QALIs may 

specify the type and extent of Government inspection of selected product/process 

characteristics or they may provide the CAO with adverse quality history on the item 

and/or contractor. 

49. Quality Assurance Provisions (QAPs). As used herein, includes all requirements for 

quality and reliability assurance, both administrative and technical, which are included 

directly or by reference in ICP prepared purchase requests, solicitations, and resulting 

contracts. Specifically, those provisions include, but are not limited to: the place of 

Government inspection and acceptance; appropriate contract quality requirements; first 
article; bid samples; inspections and tests; sampling plan; verification testing; calibration 

requirements; and supplier certifications, where necessary to provide the user with an 

item of the required quality. 

50. Quality Audit. A systematic examination of the quality related actions and decisions 

in order to independently verify or evaluate the operational requirements of a quality 

program or the specification or contract requirements of the product or service. 

51. Quality Control. A function of management relative to all procedures, inspections, 

examinations, and tests required during contracting, receipt, storage, and issue that are 

necessary to provide the user with an item of the required quality. 

52. Quality Program. Program which is developed, planned, and managed to carry out, 

cost-effectively, all efforts to effect the quality of materiel and services from concept 

through validation, full-scale development, production, deployment, and disposal. 

53. Reliability. Probability that materiel will perform its intended function for a specified 

period of time under stated conditions. 

54. Reporting Activity. The activity forwarding a Product Quality Deficiency Report to 

DLA. This may or may not be the activity that prepared the Product Quality Deficiency 

Report, and may be either the originating point or screening point. 

55. Request for Deviation. The formal document submitted by the contractor to the 

Government for the purpose of requesting departure from a specific performance or 

design requirement of a contract, specification, or referenced documents. 

56. Request for Waiver. The formal document submitted by the contractor to the 

Government for the purpose of requesting acceptance of designated nonconforming 

supplies or services. 

57. Screening Point. An activity, within the component originating the Product Quality 

Deficiency Report, which is required to determine the action point; transmit Product 

Quality Deficiency Reports for action; monitor outstanding reports; and receive 

responses. 

58. Storage Standards. Documents containing mandatory instructions for the inspection, 

testing, and/or restoration of items in storage, encompassing storage criteria, preservation, 

packaging, packing and marking requirements, and time-phasing for inspection during 

the storage cycle to determine the materiel serviceability and the degree of degradation 

that may have occurred. In the case of shelf life items, storage standards are required to 

be prepared by the managing wholesale ICP or other responsible organization for Type II 

shelf life items only. They are used at the wholesale and retail level to determine if Type 

II shelf life items have retained sufficient quantities of their original characteristics and 

are of a quality level which warrants extension of their assigned time period, and the 

length of the time period extension. 
59. Support Point. An activity that assists the action point, as requested, by conducting 

and providing results of a special analysis or investigation pertinent to the correction and 

prevention of a reported product quality deficiency. 

60. Technical Maintenance Standard (TMS). Applies to a uniform format to designate the 

specific requirements for technical data (see DLAR 4185.1, Technical Data Requirements 

for Logistic Support) that will be utilized in the performance of required maintenance of 

an item. 

61. Testing. That element of inspection that determines the properties or elements, 

including functional operation of supplies or their components, by the application of 

scientific principles and procedures. 

62. Waiver. A written authorization granted after contract award to accept a configuration 

item or other designated item which, during production or after having been submitted for 

inspection, is found to depart from specified requirements, but nevertheless is considered 

suitable for use "as is" or after repair by an approved method. 

The following are a list of abbreviations: 

ACO Administrative Contracting Officer 

ADD Allowable Degree of Deviation 

AID Acquisition Item Description 

AIS Automated Information System 

AQL Acceptable Quality Level 

ASAP As soon as Practical 

CAGE Commercial and Government Entity 

CAL Contractor Alert List 

CAO Contract Administration Office 

CAS Contract Administration Services 

CDCs Customer/Depot Complaints 

CDCS Customer Depot Complaint System 

CM/UPS Counterfeit Materiel/Unauthorized Product Substitution 

CO Contracting Officer 

COR Contracting Officer's Representative 

CoC Certificate of Conformance 

CoQC Certificate of Quality Compliance 

CQA Contract Quality Assurance 

CTDF Contract Technical Data File 

DCMC Defense Contract Management Command 

DSCC Defense Supply Center Columbus 

DSCP Defense Supply Center Philadelphia 

DSCR Defense Supply Center Richmond 

DD Defense Depot 

DESC Defense Energy Supply Center 

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

DISC Defense Industrial Supply Center 

DLA Defense Logistics Agency 

DLAD Defense Logistics Agency Directive 

DMSB Defense Medical Standardization Board 

DRMS Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service 

ICP Defense Supply Center 

DSM Defense Standardization Manual 

E-mail Electronic Mail 
ESA Engineering Support Activity 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FSC Federal Supply Class 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIDEP Government Industry Data Exchange Program 

GSA General Services Administration 

IDP Individual Development Plan 

IPE Industrial Plant Equipment 

IRPOD Individual Repair Parts Ordering Data 

LPTD Lot Tolerance Percent Defective 

MAR Master Account Record 

MDWL Missing Data Work List 

MI Mandatory Inspection 

MIS Management Information System 

MIPR Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request 

NIIN National Item Identification Number 

NNPP Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program 

NPM Nuclear Plant Materiel 

NSN National Stock Number 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PASS Pre-Award Survey System 

PCO Procurement Contracting Officer 

PID Procurement Identification Description 

PIIN Procurement Instrument Identification Number 

PO Purchasing Office 

PQDR Product Quality Deficiency Report 

PVP Product Verification Program 

PVT Product Verification Testing 

PTC Product Testing Center 

PWS Performance Work Statement 

QA Quality Assurance 

QALI Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction 

QAPs Quality Assurance Provisions 

QAR Quality Assurance Representative (In-Plant) 

QAS Quality Assurance Specialist 

QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan 

QATDP Quality Assurance Technical Development Program 

QDR Quality Deficiency Report (now PQDR; see above) 

QEP Quality Evaluation Program 

QLL Qualified Laboratory List 

QPL Qualified Products List 

QSMV Quality Systems Management Visit 

QSR Quality Systems Review 

RCS Report Control Symbol 

ROD Report of Discrepancy (now SDR; see below) 

SALT System for Analysis of Laboratory Testing Results 

SDR Supply Discrepancy Report 

SF Standard Form 

SPA Specification Preparing Activity 

SPC Statistical Process Control 

TMDE Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment 

TMS Technical Maintenance Standard 

TQM Total Quality Management 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDC United States Department of Commerce 
VSMF Visual Search Microfilm Files 

W/D Waiver/Deviation 

 

E. PROCEDURES 

1. GENERAL QA PROCEDURES 

a. Personnel performing quality functions at the ICPs play a vital role in supporting 

DLA's missions. The ICPs support the contracting and materiel management missions in 

assuring that items and services procured and delivered to our customers are of the 

requisite quality intended, and conform to customer specified requirements. Personnel 

performing these functions must be technically qualified in the products and services 

under contract. In addition, they must: fully understand and apply modern QA 

techniques, including the use of automated information systems; manage assigned 

responsibilities in a competent manner; and work cooperatively with other ICP elements, 

HQ DLA, Military Services, other Government agencies and industry in achieving 

customer satisfaction. 

b. Process Control Philosophy: 

(1) Process control philosophy, principles, and practices have been 

incorporated into QA procedures and this instruction. The instruction 

consists of guidance to systematically accomplish processes that 

continuously improve DLA's products and services. The assignment of 

"cradle-to-grave" responsibilities to personnel, who have been 

empowered to serve as Product Quality Assurance Managers for the 

life cycle of the item, creates an environment in which the employees 

can make improvements in the quality of products and services. 

Guidance on the use of Statistical Process Controls, Manufacturing 

Process Controls, Development of Statistical Techniques, and other 

contractual requirements provides the methods and means for 

contractors to control and measure their processes to improve the 

quality of their product. Basic statistical methods for measuring and 

improving the processes are used by managers of items/groups of items 

(Commodity Business Unit/Application Group/Product Center Chiefs) 

to adjust the QA program. This guidance regarding feedback of 

essential information for continuous improvement is provided in 

sections on Quality History, Quality Evaluation Program, and 

Deviations and Waivers. Personnel should continuously review their 

processes and strive to make them more efficient and effective. 

(2) All personnel have a significant affect upon the quality of products 

and services. Personnel performing quality functions should learn other 

functions and understand the effects that their work has upon quality. 

These individuals should be proactive and provide assistance to other 

areas to improve their processes. Specific areas that should be 

recognized are as follows: 

(a) Method of Support. While personnel performing quality functions should be a part of 

the determinations of method of support planning, there may be occasions where QA 

review has not been sought. When a less-than-optimal method of support has been 

chosen, that may (is) affect(ing) the quality of the item, the appropriate personnel should 

be notified with full rationale for a recommended change. If the recommendations are not 

accepted and changes are not made, the person performing quality functions should take 
actions to use tools they have at their disposal to help improve quality (i.e., request the 

Product Verification Manager to perform quality audit or special inspections). 

(b) Technical Data Package Accuracy. Upon review of Consumable Item Transfers or 

Logistics Reassignments or during the normal course of QA functions, personnel should 

also perform a quick review of the technical aspects of the technical package. If data is 

missing or requires revision, the appropriate personnel should be notified. 

(c) Packaging and Marking. During performance of development or review of Packaging 

QA requirements, personnel should also perform quick review of the packaging and 

marking requirements. If data is missing or requires revision, the appropriate personnel 

should be notified. 

(d) Solicitation and Contract Accuracy. Upon review of purchase requests and Missing 

Data Work Lists (MDWLs), personnel should also perform a quick review of the contract 

requirements. If data is missing or requires revision, the appropriate personnel should be 

notified. 

(e) Diminishing Manufacturing Sources. During the course of their work, personnel may 

learn of situations that may affect the future ability to procure items. Whenever this is 

apparent, the appropriate personnel should be notified. 

(f) Source Selection/Award of Contract. During contract review or when it is found that a 

less-than-optimal contractor has been chosen, that may (is) affect(ing) the quality of the 

item, the appropriate personnel should be notified with full rationale for a recommended 

change (i.e., termination/ modification of the contract). If the recommendations are not 

accepted and changes are not made, the person performing quality functions should take 

actions to use tools they have at their disposal to help improve quality. (This includes 

notifying the QAR through issuance of a QALI, performing QSMVs, or requesting that 

the Product Verification Manager perform quality audit or special inspections). 

(g) Backorders. During the course of their duties, personnel may be able to effect 

backorder status. All actions should be taken to assist the Item Manager in the prevention 

or resolution of the backorder. If Quality Assurance contract requirements (i.e., tests or 

inspections) can be modified or deleted, thus reducing the lead-time, and other quality 

assurance tools can be used, this should be done. If items are on backorder, expedited 

release of PQDR exhibits or test items may relieve the situation. 

(h) Disposal of excess stock. During the course of their duties, personnel may learn of 

situations about the quantity of stock, i.e., where stock is no longer needed, an item is 

obsolete, or when stock may be needed in the future. When this occurs, the information 

about the items should be provided to the Item Manager for their appropriate action. 

(i) Acceptance/authorization of returned stock. The Item Manager should be notified of 

any knowledge that may affect their decisions to accept or reject items offered for return. 

(j) Special Program Requirements. During the course of their duties, personnel may learn 

of customers' materiel needs or requirements. When this occurs, the information about 
the items and customers should be provided to the Item Manager for their appropriate 

action. 

2. CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND COMMODITY TRAINING 

a. This area serves to provide guidance to personnel concerning their role in career 

development and commodity training programs. Some Quality Assurance references are 

as follows: 

(1) DLAD 4155.7, Quality Assurance Technical Development Program 

(QATDP) for DLA Inventory Control Points. 

(2) DLAI 4155.7, Defense Logistics Agency Inventory Control Point 

(ICP) Quality Assurance Technical Development Program (QATDP) 

Course Catalog. 

(3) DoD 5000.52-M, Acquisition Career Development Program. 

(4) DLAR 1430.12, Civilian Employee Development and Training. 

(5) DLAR 1430.5, DLA Intra-Agency Recurring Training Courses. 

b. Career development is a dual responsibility of management and the individual. While 

management is expected to plan for the development of each career employee by 

providing on-the-job training (OJT) and off-the-job assignments, the ultimate value to be 

realized from a career training plan is determined by the careerist participating in the 

program. Self-development is an important key to individual success and, in turn, results 

in organizational success. 

c. Compliance with DLAD 4155.7 is mandatory. DLAD 4155.7 and DLAI 4155.7 

provide policy and procedures for the technical development and certification of ICP 

personnel in QA systems skill and commodity skill areas. 

d. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), has a major impact 

upon employees seeking opportunities to advance within the acquisition workforce. 

Quality Assurance has been designated as a functional subset of the acquisition position 

categories. This provides the opportunity for more professional development, education, 

training, and career opportunities. All QA personnel should be aware of the opportunities 

within the acquisition workforce in planning their careers. 

e. Supervisors of personnel performing quality functions will assure that an IDP is 

established for each employee under his/her supervision. The IDPs should include: 

(1) QA systems training that provides personnel the knowledge and 

skills in Quality Assurance and related programs, functions, policy, and 

procedures. 

(2) Commodity skill training that provides personnel product-oriented 

technical knowledge and skills necessary for effective performance of 

QA actions in the commodity. The commodity skill areas must be 

determined based on job assignments, both current and planned. 

f. Personnel performing quality functions will: 

(1) Complete assigned training satisfactorily. 

(2) Make training and developmental needs known to their supervisor. 
(3) Assist in the development and preparation of the IDP. 

(4) Willingly take those training courses scheduled for them in order to 

increase their skills and capabilities in the QA discipline and to increase 

their overall self-development. Personnel in the day-to-day course of 

their jobs may observe areas where a training course or courses would 

enhance their capability to perform assigned functions. In these 

situations the person performing QA functions should make the need 

known to his/her supervisor. 

g. DLAR 1430.5 assigns responsibilities and establishes procedures for providing 

specialized commodity training to personnel from the ICPs, DDs, and DCMDs. Such 

training will be oriented toward product use and the examination and testing of product 

characteristics. 

h. The provisions of DLAR 1430.12 must be followed in scheduling and accomplishing 

all training. 

i. The Career Development Division in the Office of Civilian Personnel at each field 

activity will incorporate training needs extracted from IDPs into the activity training plan 

prescribed by DLAR 1430.12. The Career Development Division staff is available to 

assist in developing IDPs and identifying training sources. All DD Forms 1556, Request, 

Authorization, Agreement, Certification of Training and Reimbursement, must be 

forwarded through the Career Development Division. The use of the form is mandated. 

3. DLA QUALITY DAYS 

a. Recurring Quality Days are held to pro-vide a means for determining and resolving any 

problems in the area of Quality and Reliability Assurance and to exchange information. 

All DLA Quality elements provide representatives to participate. 

b. Quality Days will convene at least semi-annually, or more frequently as required. 

c. Attendance by DLA ICP personnel to represent their ICP who have knowledge and 

work in the area of quality assurance is required. Attendance by the DLA ICP 

Commander/Deputy Commander is also desired. 

d. Official travel is authorized to attend Quality Days or participate in assigned projects. 

Costs will be funded by the representative's organization. 

e. Quality Day representatives will: 

(1) Participate, and designate representatives to participate, in working 

groups to resolve specific problems. 

(2) Host Group meetings when requested by the chairperson and 

establish working groups as necessary. The host of the Quality Day, or 

an appointed representative, will be responsible for administrative 

duties, such as notification of meetings, agenda preparation, and 

preparation/distribution of minutes. 

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS (QAPs) 

a. The contracting process plays a significant role in determining the ultimate quality of 

products and services delivered to DLA customers. Inadequate contracts, technical data 

packages, and irresponsible contractors are the sources of most quality problems. 

Through sound management of quality and reliability, personnel are able to recognize 
and remove the conditions, which contribute to, or cause, the delivery of deficient 

materiel. QAPs provide the means to prevent or identify and correct nonconforming 

materiel prior to the acceptance action. This is important because recourse by the 

Government after materiel acceptance is both difficult and expensive. b. Personnel 

performing QA functions support the contracting function by assuring that ICP contracts 

contain, by reference or direct incorporation, definitive and current QAPs. Normally, 

QAPs are applied through automated means as soon as possible after the items is 

assigned to the ICP. However, in some cases this is not possible and QAPs must be 

assigned by a manual review of the individual contracting action. Periodic reviews of 

QAPs assigned in the automated system will be accomplished to assure that QAPs 

assigned in this manner are both current and definitive. 

c. ICPs will establish a priority system to be followed when assigning or updating QAPs. 

In establishing priorities, personnel shall maximize the use of the contract listing 

forecasts, as prepared by item management/contracting systems. To the maximum extent, 

QAPs should be predetermined and entered in advance of contracting so that manual 

reviews are held to a minimum. Priority will be given to assigning or updating QAPs in 

descending order as follows: QAPs impacting readiness and/or priority requisitions, 

QAPs associated with pending contracts for critical application items, products and 

services in support of mobilization, and QAPs for contracts of a high dollar value. 

d. Personnel performing this function must: 

(1) Develop QAPs for new items entering the inventory and for items 

transferred from the Military Services/GSA to DLA for management. 

(2) Revise existing QAPs on current DLA managed items whenever 

they are found to be inadequate. 

(3) Provide QAP information to appropriate contracting elements 

through documents or automated systems. 

e. Factors, which must be considered when assigning QAPs, are discussed herein. 

Guidance provided is appropriate for use at all ICPs for the determination and assignment 

of QAPs. The FAR, subpart 46.203, describes three classifications to be used in 

determining the appropriate contract quality requirement. These classifications are 

technical description, complexity, and criticality. Before attempting to assign QAPs, 

personnel will determine where the item (supply or service) falls within these 

classifications. By recognizing these classifications, QAPs can be tailored to fit the 

specific needs of the item. Guidance for tailoring is as follows: 

(1) Item Technical Description. 

(a) DLA manages and procures supplies and services for which the item technical 

description is either developed by industry for general use (commonly known as 

commercial items), or the item is developed by industry or Government for Government 

use (known as Military-Federal or Government drawing/specification items). 

(b) Item description data for a commercial item may range from a drawing with 

comprehensive supporting data to a manufacturer's part number alone. For commercial 

items, the Government shall not specify any specific contractor quality assurance system. 

(c) Non-commercial items may also range from manufacturer's part number to a drawing 

with comprehensive supporting data, including Military-Federal specifications. When 

Military-Federal specification items are involved, the specification will be reviewed to 
assure the assigned QAPs are definitive. They should identify or specifically reference all 

the examinations and tests required to determine if the item being purchased conforms to 

the technical requirements of the specifications. Particular attention should be given to 

Government testing requirements, specifically with regard to who will perform the tests, 

the time frame of testing, and the costs associated with the tests. If it is determined that 

the specification QAPs are missing or inadequate, action will be taken, in coordination 

with the SPA, to develop or revise them. When pending procurements will not allow time 

for formal coordination, telephonic coordination should be effected, followed by written 

confirmation. Documentation concerning recommendations for additions, deletions, or 

changes to specifications will be forwarded to the ICP standardization activity or 

appropriate individuals performing standardization functions. Formal recommendations 

will normally be submitted on a DLA Form 339, Request for Engineering Support, or DD 

Form 1426, Standardization Document Improvement Proposal. Formal agreements 

between the ICPs and SPAs, which authorize the ICP to make additions or corrections to 

specifications, without the specific approval of the SPA, are encouraged. 

(d) Some supplies managed and procured by DLA fall somewhere between the 

commercial item and the Military-Federal classifications. For instance, an Original 

Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) may be contracted to design a system meeting certain 

requirements. Frequently, the subsequent design is not addressed by Government 

specifications and the Government may not have obtained full data rights from the OEM. 

Therefore, the drawings containing the technical descriptions are proprietary to the OEM 

and the Government has access only to the OEM's assigned part number or "limited 

rights" drawings, where the technical data contained thereon cannot legally be used for 

procurement purposes. [1] When the only technical description available is a 

manufacturer's part number and current information does not indicate that any further 

data can be obtained (e.g., data proprietary and OEM refuses to provide additional 

information), actions should be taken to request additional data through the ICP's 

Technical personnel/element. [2] When the only technical item description available is 

contained on proprietary "limited rights" drawings, personnel will not use that 

information in determining QAPs, if such use violates the limited rights restrictions. 

(2) Complexity. This item classification has to do with the complexity 

of the item's quality characteristics. Items are either categorized as 

complex or noncomplex as described in FAR subpart 46.203(b). In 

making complexity determinations, personnel should base their 

decision on a review of the total available technical data. Complexity 

determinations must not be based upon the item's nomenclature alone. 

(3) Criticality of Application. Type of application deals with the 

criticality of the use of the item, i.e., critical or non-critical. FAR 

subpart 46.203(c) describes an item as having a critical application 

when its failure could injure personnel or jeopardize a vital military 

mission. DLAD/DLAI 3200.1 further defines these items as being 

essential to the preservation of life in emergencies or essential to end 

item accomplishment of a military mission. Military Services are 

responsible for designating critical or non-critical application. In many 

cases, even otherwise adequate technical descriptions do not contain 

information required to make a criticality determination. When the 

Military Service has not designated the criticality of an item and 
available technical data does not clearly indicate a non-critical 

application, personnel will request such a determination from the 

responsible ESA. On the other hand, if an item is designated as having 

a critical application, but available information clearly disputes this 

fact, a request for verification from the responsible ESA should be 

initiated. In no case will Military Service designated critical application 

items be changed to non-critical without the specific approval of the 

ESA. If an item has multiple applications, only one being critical, it 

will still be treated as having critical application in determining the 

appropriate QAPs. 

(4) Analyze the quality history of the item. In developing QAPs, 

personnel must consider all available information, such as: quality 

complaints, record of preaward surveys, postaward orientation 

conferences, special inspection requirements, as well as any other 

factors bearing on the item or contracting action. The Quality 

Evaluation Program (QEP), or other systems for retaining quality 

history, should be consulted for information on the item. 

(5) Check for combined product and service contracting action. 

Personnel should be aware of the increasing tendency for individual 

contracts to include requirements for the acquisition of supplies and 

services, i.e., maintenance, storage, and mobilization support. In these 

cases, assure the QAPs provide for both the service and the product. 

(6) Determine and develop the appropriate requirements for the QAP. 

When developing QAPs, personnel shall consider each of the 

following: 

(a) Select and include a specific type of contract quality requirement based upon the 

item's technical description, complexity, and criticality, which is mandatory on all QAPs. 

This shall be done in accordance with FAR, subpart 46.2, DoD FAR supplement, subpart 

246.2, and DLAD 4105.1, Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive, subpart 46.2. 

(b) Determine the applicability and use of DLAD 4105.1 clause 52.246.9001, 

Manufacturing Process Controls and In-process Inspections, when a need exists to 

strengthen the control of product quality. 

(c) Develop inspection and test procedures, such as a requirement for laboratory testing, 

to verify that materiel or services conform to requirements. Include complete information 

regarding inspections/tests, including an appropriate sampling plan, to be conducted. 

(d) Determine and designate the place of performance, either source or destination, for 

Government CQA and acceptance actions. Place of performance is mandatory for all 

QAPs. 

(e) Establish/develop requirements and procedures for First Article testing, or bid 

samples, as required. 

(f) Determine appropriateness of a Certificate of Conformance (CoC) provision. 

(g) Determine need for, and develop, requirements for Certificate of Quality Compliance 

(CoQC). 
(h) Determine need for, and develop, requirements for Statistical Process Controls. 

(i) Determine whether warranty provisions should be included. f. Personnel assigning 

QAPs will: 

(1) Determine if definitive QAPs have been provided by the 

responsible Engineering Support Activity/Specification Preparing 

Activity (ESA/SPA). If specific requirements have been requested by 

the ESA/SPA, analyze these for applicability and appropriateness. 

Requirements that are not appropriate for the situation should be 

clarified with the respective ESA/SPA. 

(2) Use their product technical and service knowledge. This is 

necessary since each individual must have a technical knowledge of 

their managed products and services before QAPs can be realistically 

developed and assigned. Otherwise, assignment of QAPs is largely an 

arbitrary determination, which can ultimately lead to quality problems 

or a needless expenditure of resources. 

(3) Review technical data. Analyze the item description, statement of 

work, drawings, specifications, and any other technical data provided 

or referenced in the item requirements. When personnel cannot 

determine QAPs, due to the inadequacy or unavailability of technical 

data, clarification from the ICP's Technical person/element assigned to 

the item and/or the appropriate ESA/SPA will be obtained in 

accordance with DLAR 3200.2, Engineering Support for Procurement. 

During the review of the technical data, any corrections that are 

required to the technical requirements should be brought to the 

attention of the ICP's Technical person responsible for the item. 

(4) Provide computer inputs, in support of ICP initiatives to automate 

contracting operations (i.e., record the determination in the CTDF and 

place rationale in the QEP). 

5. PACKAGING QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 

a. Assuring that proper QAPs are recommended does not stop with the product itself. The 

QAPs must also include the Quality Assurance aspects of the packaging and marking. 

b. Personnel performing packaging functions at the ICPs will determine the level of 

packaging required to provide adequate protection for the item at the least cost, from time 

of contracting to use. 

c. Personnel performing quality functions will: 

(1) Assure definitive Quality Assurance requirements for packaging are 

included in ICP contract documents consistent with the technical 

packaging requirements. The Quality Assurance requirements include 

defining inspection levels, sampling plans, types of defects for the 

packaging and marking, and, when appropriate, required packaging 

tests. 

(2) Review, determine, develop and assign Quality Assurance 

requirements for packaging. 

(3) Develop Quality Assurance requirements for packaging in advance 

of actual contracting according to established priorities and guidance. 
Such requirements will be entered into automated systems to the 

maximum extent possible. 

(4) Incorporate Quality Assurance requirements for packaging 

furnished by the Services and/or other Government agencies in contract 

documents. If established requirements are ambiguous or are not 

definitive, or if the latest packaging/inspection/test technique, method 

or technology can be substituted, clarification will be requested from 

the appropriate technical activity. 

(5) Consider packaging historical data, such as discrepancy/deficiency 

reports and other user feedback data, in the development of Quality 

Assurance contracting requirements for packaging. 

6. CONTRACT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 

a. The contractor is responsible for product quality and for offering only conforming 

materiel to the Government for acceptance. The basic statements of the contractor's 

responsibility for quality, and the level of quality control that must be maintained, are 

contained in the contractual quality requirement. 

b. The contract quality requirement shall be the first QAP requirement to be determined. 

This will assist in selection of other QAP requirements. 

c. A comprehensive review of all technical data will be conducted by personnel 

performing quality functions prior to determining the type of quality requirement for a 

specific item. If necessary, ICP Technical personnel/element, and the Military Service 

ESA/SPA personnel, with specialized knowledge of the product should be consulted to 

assist in assigning an appropriate contract quality requirement. 

d. The criteria given in FAR subparts 46.202 and 46.203, DFARS subparts 246.202 and 

246.203, and DLAD 4105.1 subpart 46.2, shall be used as guides in selecting an 

appropriate type of contract quality requirement. As shown therein, the item's technical 

description, complexity, and criticality are the primary determining factors as to which of 

the four requirements should be applied. When circumstances warrant, a requirement 

different than that arrived at through use of the criteria may be specified, however, the 

decision to deviate from the criteria must be founded upon a sound technical base. 

(1) When a Military Service ESA has designated a specific contract 

quality requirement for an item, personnel should consider this in 

making their determination. However, if technical data is available and 

doesn't support the Service's designation, assignment of a contract 

quality requirement, which fits the needs of the item, should be made. 

Prior to assigning a less stringent quality requirement, the ESA should 

be informed, as they may have other information, which supports their 

designation. 

(2) When the only technical item description available is "limited 

rights," or proprietary, the item should be treated as having a MilitaryFederal item technical description. 

e. Far Part 46 identifies four types of contract quality requirements and describes the 

purpose of each. The four types are: 

(1) Contracts for Commercial Items (FAR subpart 46.202-1). When 

acquiring commercial items (see FAR Part 12), the Government shall 

rely on contractors' existing quality assurance systems as a substitute 
for Government inspection and testing before tender for acceptance 

unless customary market practices for the commercial item being 

acquired include in-process inspection. Any in-process inspection by 

the Government shall be conducted in a manner consistent with 

commercial practice. 

(a) Per FAR PART 12-208, the Government shall rely on the contractor's existing quality 

assurance systems as a substitute for Government inspection and testing before tender for 

acceptance unless customary market practices for the commercial item being acquired 

include in-process inspection. 

(b) For commercial items determined to be safety-critical or critical application that have 

had quality problems in the past, alternative inspection procedures may be included in an 

addendum to the solicitation/contract. Because the Government must rely on contractors' 

existing quality assurance systems, it becomes essential that past performance evaluation 

regarding quality be performed to assess the proposal before award. This may be done 

through market research of the quality of the commercial item (for new vendors), review 

of quality history, i.e., QEP, or through the inclusion of evaluation factors (FAR subpart 

52.212-2) in the solicitation. 

(c) For items purchased to a Commercial Item Description, a general conformance 

statement QAP shall be used, similar to the following: "5.1 Product Conformance. The 

products provided shall meet the salient characteristics of this commercial item 

description, conform to the producer's own drawings, specifications, standards, and 

quality assurance practices, and be the same product offered for sale in the commercial 

market. The government reserves the right to require proof of such conformance." 

(2) Government Reliance on Inspection by the Contractor, commonly 

known as the Contractor Inspection Clause (FAR subpart 46.202-2). 

(a) Except as specified in (b) of this section, the Government shall rely on the contractor 

to accomplish all inspection and testing needed to ensure that supplies or services 

acquired at or below the simplified acquisition threshold conform to contract quality 

requirements before they are tendered to the Government (see 46.301). 

(b) The Government shall not rely on inspection by the contractor if the contracting 

officer determines that the Government has a need to test the supplies or services in 

advance of their tender for acceptance, or to pass judgment upon the adequacy of the 

contractor's internal work processes. In making the determination, the contracting officer 

shall consider [1] The nature of the supplies and services being purchased and their 

intended use; [2] The potential losses in the event of defects; [3] The likelihood of 

uncontested replacement or correction of defective work; and [4] The cost of detailed 

Government inspection. 

(3) Standard Inspection Requirements, (FAR subpart 46.202-3). 

(a) Standard inspection requirements are contained in the clauses prescribed in FAR 

subparts 46.302 through 46.308, and 46.310, and in the product and service specifications 

that are included in solicitations and contracts. 
(b) The clauses referred to in (a) of this section [1] Require the contractor to provide and 

maintain an inspection system that is acceptable to the Government; [2] Give the 

Government the right to make inspections and tests while work is in process; and [3] 

Require the contractor to keep complete, and make available to the Government, records 

of its inspection work. 

(4) Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements. When a Higher-Level 

contract quality requirement is warranted, the applicable ICP 

clause/QAP should be used. Whenever a Higher-Level requirement is 

used, FAR subpart 52.246-2, Inspection of Supplies Fixed-Price, must 

also be used. The Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements 

clause/QAP gives contractors a blank to fill in to indicate their 

preference for a particular standard(s). The options are for the 

contractor to: 

(a) Implement a documented quality system in accordance with the appropriate 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)9000/American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) or American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) Q90 standard, or; 

(b) Implement a system that meets other recognized industry (not ISO/ANSI/ASQC) 

standards, or; 

(c) Implement a system that meets the Government's requirement. This system shall not 

have previously been determined by the Government to be insufficient for its purposes. 

(d) When requesting a higher-level contract quality requirement, personnel may: [1] 

Specifically cite the inclusion of ISO 9003, for situations where use of a commercial 

standard is appropriate, but ISO 9002 is considered too stringent. [2] Request to modify 

existing contracts (that were written when MIL-I-45208 and Mil-Q-9858 were still used) 

to permit use of the appropriate ISO 9000/Q90 standard instead of MIL-I-45208 and 

MIL-Q-9858. This should only be done if the contractor and Government mutually agree 

to the change. This will ordinarily be accomplished at no cost to either party. In revising 

these old contracts, you are cautioned not to use ISO 9003 in place of a MIL-I-45208 

system, since these are not equivalent systems. (The latter is more stringent as a standalone document.) Use of ISO 9003/Q9003 is only appropriate where conformance to 

requirements is to be assured solely at final inspection and test. [3] Tailor the ISO 9002 

requirements to a level sufficient to meet the contract needs to avoid imposing excessive 

requirements on the contractor. Tailoring the requirements may be appropriate when: 

soliciting for items that were previously satisfied with MIL-I-45208 and MIL-Q-9858 

standards and higher-level is not required; there is evidence that no responses will be 

received for solicitations that require ISO 9000 or equivalent; or, a solicitation is released 

with the ISO requirement and no responses are received. However, specifying that the 

process control requirement of ISO 9001 or 9002, or other industry standards is 

inapplicable in any procurement should be carefully weighed, since the intent of 

eliminating MIL-I-45208 and MIL-Q-9858 was to substitute process controls and nongovernment standards in place of military-unique quality assurance systems. 

(e) During evaluation of higher-level contract quality requirements, personnel should 

remember that any quality system proposed by the contractor needs to provide for the 
Government's ability to audit/validate its capabilities to ensure the safety and satisfaction 

of our customers. Additionally, during any pre- and/or post-award conferences the 

contracting officer should stress that the quality system proposed shall satisfy the needs 

of the individual procurement. It should be clear that the contractor retains quality 

responsibility for the supplies or services furnished under the contract and their 

conformance to the contract requirements. 

(f) It may be appropriate to evaluate the contractor's proposed quality system in the 

context of the technical evaluation portion of a best-value source selection. Refer to FAR 

subpart 15.6, DFARS subpart 215.6, and DLAD subpart 15.6. If evaluating a quality 

system is part of the technical evaluation, then personnel performing quality functions 

should perform the evaluation of quality as the subject matter experts in ISO (or similar) 

validated and/or certified systems. 

7. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENT CQA 

a. Government Contract Quality assurance (CQA) must be designated either at source or 

destination and is mandatory on all QAPs. Government CQA actions at source normally 

consists of a review of the contractor's processes (including the contractor's contract 

quality system) that may be coupled with a technical inspection of the supplies. Technical 

inspection (as to form, fit, or function) is the examination and/or testing of supplies to 

determine their compliance with contract requirements. Government CQA actions at 

destination will normally consist of kind, count and condition verification, unless a 

Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI) requesting specific technical inspection is 

provided to the activity at destination. ICPs requesting technical inspection at DLA 

Distribution Depots should be aware of, and arrange for funding for, the cost of 

inspection. 

b. Prior to determining the place of performance for Government CQA actions, the 

required QAPs and appropriate contract quality requirements should have been 

determined. This is necessary because these determinations could affect, or possibly 

mandate, where CQA actions will be performed. 

c. CQA at source is mandatory for some specific categories of items, based upon the 

critical nature of their application. Items so designated must be inspected at source 

because it is necessary to provide additional assurance, through on-site Government 

verification, that material conforms to requirements. 

(1) For FSCAP items, Government CQA actions, including source 

inspection, are mandatory with no exceptions. 

(2) For other critical items, Government CQA actions shall usually be 

performed at source. 

(a) Exceptions to this policy shall generally be made for off-the-shelf items, or in those 

situations where previous acquisition or quality history based on objective evidence 

permits us to anticipate the receipt of fully-acceptable supplies. In these cases, a 

determination may be made to perform Government contract quality assurance actions at 

destination (this is the normal action to take). Objective evidence of good quality history 

includes such indicators as laboratory testing results from Government-owned or 

Government-contracted labs; previous acquisition experience of a sufficient 

volume/period, during which there were no reported product defects/first article 
failures/recurring waiver requests; prior quality certification under a Qualified Products 

List or Qualified Manufacturer List program; and the like. This determination shall be 

documented in contractor history files by item. 

(b) When source inspection is still required for a critical application item, and the item is 

acquired from a sole source that will not permit quality assurance at source, the matter 

should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis to provide adequate consideration to the 

Government for the added cost of performance of the necessary technical quality 

assurance at destination, at a designated Government/commercial laboratory, or at the 

using activity. Conversely, if the supplier insists on quality assurance at source for noncritical or noncomplex items which are normally assigned for quality assurance at 

destination, or for those critical application items that are exceptions to the source 

inspection requirement, this matter should be negotiated with adequate consideration 

flowing to the Government, on a case-by-case basis for the added cost of performance of 

unnecessary Government quality assurance at source. 

(c) CQA at source may also be necessary when there are requirements for technical 

inspection; e.g., first article inspection, in-process inspection, and/or requirements for 

special testing or detailed inspection. Contracts should be assigned for contract quality 

assurance at destination if verification as to type and kind, quantity, and condition is 

sufficient. 

(d) Some sole source suppliers refuse to allow CQA at source. If this occurs and there is 

insufficient information available (attempts to obtain additional technical data have been 

unsuccessful) for the performance of technical inspection during subsequent functions of 

supply, the reliance must be placed upon the supplier's objective evidence of quality 

conformance (also true of non-critical items). 

(3) CQA at source will be specified for all Individual Repair Parts 

Ordering Data (IRPOD) items. IRPOD items are identified when ICPs 

procure and manage materiel for use in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 

Program (NNPP) and the Nuclear Plant Material (NPM) parts/spares 

program. Maximum confidence is required that this materiel conforms 

to requirements since it is used in critical shipboard and land systems. 

In certain cases, QA personnel must extract salient technical data 

contained in the IRPOD documents and have it incorporated into 

contracts as Quality Assurance Provisions. IRPOD documents may also 

contain pages that specify Mandatory Inspections (MIs) to be 

performed by the Government to assure that the materiel conforms to 

requirements. These MIs shall not be incorporated into the contract, 

since QA personnel will forward the applicable MIs as part of a QALI 

to the appropriate CAS office(s). CoC will not be incorporated in any 

contract for IRPOD items. 

(4) In addition to the above situations, CQA at source is mandatory if 

any of the following situations are applicable: 

(a) Performance at any other place would require uneconomical disassembly or 

destructive testing. (This should be determined through review of the technical data and 

knowledge of inspection requirements of the item.) 
(b) Considerable loss would result from the manufacture and shipment of unacceptable 

supplies, or from the delay in making necessary corrections. (A review of the past history 

(QEP should be used, if available) will indicate if shipment of unacceptable supplies has 

been provided in the past.) 

(c) Special required instruments, gauges, or facilities are available only at source. 

(d) Performance at any other place would destroy, or require the replacement of, costly 

special packing and packaging. 

(e) Government inspection during contract performance is essential. (This might be 

indicated through Military Service designating QAPs.) 

(f) It is determined for other reasons to be in the Government's interest. (In general, when 

a technical inspection is necessary to assure that an item conforms to requirements, and 

this inspection cannot be adequately conducted at destination.) 

(g) At the current time, FAR subpart 46.402 also specifies that [CQA at source is 

mandatory when] " (e) A higher level contract quality requirement is included in the 

contract,(see FAR subpart 46.202-4); and (g) Supplies requiring inspection are destined 

for points of embarkation for overseas shipment (unless the contracting officer 

determines in advance that necessary inspection functions can be provided at such 

points". A change to this policy has been requested, but DoD activities have obtained a 

deviation to this policy that was issued by the USD (A & T) Defense Procurement 

Director on November 6, 1997. This deviation deleted mandatory Government CQA at 

source rules (e) and (g) from FAR subpart 46.402. The reason for the deletions were to 

remove barriers, and allow procuring activities to determine that CQA at destination can 

be utilized, which is the normal route to take. 

d. CQA at destination should be requested if the item can be properly inspected at 

destination. In addition to requesting the destination inspection on the contract, the person 

performing the quality functions shall make arrangements with the activity that is to 

perform the inspection; a QALI may be used to request the inspection. Appropriate 

instructions and funding should be provided. The decision should be based on the 

technical makeup of the item, availability of test equipment, presence of capable 

inspection personnel at destination, and the absence of any mandatory source inspection 

requirements. 

(1) Purchases of commercial, non-critical items described by only a 

part number, should normally be assigned for destination inspection. 

(2) Contracts should require CQA at destination if verification as to 

kind, count, and condition is sufficient, and the item has a noncritical 

application. 

(3) When the required testing equipment is located at destination, 

inspection will be assigned at destination. 

(4) In general, if an item does not require mandatory source inspection, 

attempts to obtain additional technical data have been unsuccessful, and 

available data is not sufficient to specify technical inspection 

characteristics, then destination inspection should be assigned. 
(5) A guide (Figure 7-1) has been developed that may be used to give 

indications of where GSI might be placed. This only gives an indication 

and should not be relied upon for conclusive determinations without 

reviewing other available information. 

GSI DECISION GUIDE 

 

 (THIS LISTING IS NOT INCLUSIVE OR MANDATORY) 

 KEY FOR NO GSI = GOOD QUALITY HISTORY 

 

GSI IS NOT RECOMMENDED WHEN QUALITY HISTORY IS GOOD PLUS ANY OF THE 

FOLLOWING: 

 

OEM 

Part Number Buy 

10 Awards + PVT 

Long Term Contracts 

Non Critical + Sole Source + OEM 

First Article Approved (follow on) 

QSL/QML/QPL 

Test/Inspect Capability at Destination 

Commercial Item (Off The Shelf) 

Shelf Life Items + Application 

Purchases from Distributors 

Prime Vendor Program 

Non-complex 

Low dollar value 

Certificate of Conformance (CoC) 

Third Party 

Contractor Self Qualification 

Higher Level Quality Requirement (FAR Change in process) 

Overseas shipment without special transportation, packaging or handling 

Extended Warranties with Repair & Replacement 

Off The Shelf (Military) 

Other Government Activities (i.e., GSA, FDA, DOT...) 

New Contractor + Good Commercial Market Research 

 

FIGURE 7-1 

 KEY FOR GSI = NO OR UNSATISFACTORY QUALITY 

HISTORY 

 

GSI IS RECOMMENDED IF THERE IS NO OR UNSATISFACTORY QUALITY HISTORY PLUS 

ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 

 

Flight Safety Critical 

Safety Critical 

Life Support Equipment (i.e., Egress, Parachute...) 

Level 1 Subsafe 

Navy Nuclear Propulsion 

Mission Essential (excluding partial capability) 

Explosive Safety 

Ammunition 

Critical Support Equipment 

New Contractor + No Commercial Market Research 

Special Packaging 

Special Test Requirements 
First Article/Initial or Production Lots 

Poor Delivery Performance 

Financial Instability 

Nuclear Weapons 

Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) Weapons/Equipment 

Hazmat 

Public Law (USDA, FDA, etc.) 

High Reliability Items 

Low Quantity + Complex + Military Application 

Unique Processes (i.e., Clothing & Textile, Composite...) 

Application of Item (i.e., M-16...) 

First Time Breakout 

New Technology 

 

FIGURE 7-1 

e. With the exception of those items requiring mandatory source inspection, an item's 

quality history may indicate that a change in place of performance is warranted. 

(1) When an item has been designated for source inspection on 

previous contracts and the quality history has been consistently good, 

consideration should be given to specifying destination inspection. 

(2) When an item's quality history is unsatisfactory, and destination 

inspection has previously been identified, consideration should be 

given to requiring source inspection and, where necessary, issuing a 

QALI requiring MIs for the item. 

f. Place of Acceptance. Ordinarily the place of acceptance is assigned at the same 

location as the place of performance for CQA actions. Items assigned source inspection 

will normally be accepted at source, and items assigned destination inspection will 

normally be accepted at destination. However, it should be recognized that there are 

instances where inspection can be at source and acceptance at destination. 

8. CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE (CoC) 

a. A CoC is a contractor's certification that the supplies are of the quality and quantities 

specified, and are in all other respects in conformance with contract requirements. 

b. Usually, CoC is only used in certain instances in lieu of Government source inspection. 

However, when quality history (i.e., QEP), if available, indicates that the quality of the 

item is consistently good, and it is only necessary to obtain a statement of certification, 

CoC may be used in contracts which assign inspection at destination. A CoC shall not be 

used for acceptance of supplies, nor as the basis for payment. 

c. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, the CoC clause may be inserted into 

solicitations and contracts where: 

(1) Small losses would be incurred by the Government in the event of 

defects and/or; 

(2) Knowledge of the supplier's reputation and performance provides 

assurance that defective supplies would be replaced without contest. 

d. The Contracting Officer's decision to include the CoC clause in a contract is the first of 

two steps required before a contractor is allowed to use CoC in lieu of Government 

source inspection. The second step involves the cognizant CAO giving the contractor 
written authorization allowing the contractor to ship supplies under CoC. This additional 

step is necessary because: 

(1) The CoC clause may be used in competitive solicitations where the 

successful contractor is unknown prior to award and his reputation 

and/or performance may not meet the criteria specified above. 

(2) It gives the final approval authority to the Government element 

normally having the most current information concerning the 

successful contractor's overall performance record and production 

capability. 

e. Personnel performing this function shall assist the Contracting Officer in determining 

whether the CoC should be included in DLA procurements. 

(1) In most cases, the Contracting Officer's decision on the use of the 

CoC clause is primarily based on information concerning the potential 

supplier(s) rather than on the nature of the item(s) involved. For this 

reason, it is imperative that the Contracting personnel are kept informed 

of any adverse quality information associated with suppliers. When 

determined appropriate, based on a record of unsatisfactory quality 

performance, personnel will recommend against the use of the CoC 

clause in contracts awarded to a specific contractor. Also it is 

recommend not to use CoC in initial solicitations involving a new 

item(s). 

(2) There are cases where the nature of the item (or class of items) 

should play an important role in the Contracting Officer's decision 

concerning the use of the CoC clause: 

(a) In the case of IRPOD item procurements, personnel will, as a minimum, extract the 

MIs contained in the IRPOD document and forward them under a QALI with the CAO's 

copy of the contract. The MIs must be performed at source. The CoC clause should not 

be used with IRPOD items. 

(b) If an item (or class of items) requiring Government inspection at source has a record 

of quality problems, personnel shall review all available quality information and, if 

determined appropriate, recommend to the Contracting Officer that the CoC clause not be 

used in procurements for that item (or class of items). Where there are several potential 

suppliers of an item with a record of quality problems, and these problems are associated 

with only a few such suppliers, it is recommended not to use the CoC clause in 

procurements involving the specific suppliers, rather than not using it for the item. 

(c) If an item(s) is identified by the Military Service(s) as having a critical application, 

particularly weapon system items, CoC should not be used in solicitations without a 

careful review of quality data and a conscious decision being made. 

f. Personnel shall perform contract reviews, and provide quality history to the CAO with 

appropriate recommendations regarding the CoC, when the contractor is new or has 

adverse quality history. The CAO should also be alerted of any adverse item quality 

history. 

9. CERTIFICATE OF QUALITY COMPLIANCE (CoQC) 
a. A CoQC is a contractor's certification that provides specific detailed information and 

objective evidence that the materiel offered for acceptance meets all contract and 

specification requirements. CoQCs can only be used on safety-critical and other critical 

items that have had significant quality problems in the past. 

b. CoQC requirements are not the same as CoC requirements. The CoC enables 

contractors to submit a certification that supplies are of a quality and quantify specified in 

lieu of Government inspection being performed. The CoQC is a certification that does not 

affect the performance of inspection. The CoQC is an additional requirement to the 

performance of Contractor inspection that provides a detailed certification of the specific 

inspection and tests required, and the actual results achieved. 

c. The CoQC may be used for both source inspected contracts and destination inspected 

contracts. In the case of destination-inspected material, the certificate (or a copy) must 

accompany the shipment. For source-inspected material, the original certificate must be 

available for a period of 4 years. When requested by the contracting officer the 

Contractor shall make the certificate available for review. A copy may (but need not) 

accompany the shipment. 

d. When objective quality evidence is needed to assure that the supplied materiel meets 

all contract and specification requirements of items, a requirement for a CoQC should be 

requested. This requirement should also be considered for inclusion when a certified test 

report for materials is needed, whether the anticipated contractor is, or is not, the 

manufacturer of the material. 

e. DLAD 4105.1, part 46.3, and the contract clause at paragraph 52.246-9000, contain 

details of the use of COQC. The contract clause "shall be inserted for solicitations and 

contracts for safety-critical (i.e., Class 3 threaded items) or for critical items that the 

ESA/SPA, and/or Center Quality/Technical element [personnel] have identified as 

experiencing significant quality problems in previous procurements". The following 

conditions must be present: 

(1) There is a product specification, drawing or standard designated in 

the Procurement Item Description (PID) and, 

(2) The ESA/SPA and/or Center Quality/Technical personnel have 

determined that objective evidence in the form of a specific COQC is 

needed to ensure that the material offered by the supplier meets all 

contract and specification requirements. 

(3) The contract clause at 52.246-9003, Measuring and Test 

Equipment, shall be used in solicitations and contracts which contain 

both the CoQC and the standard inspection clauses. 

(4) The contract clause at 52.246-9004, Product Verification Testing 

(PVT) shall be used in solicitations and contracts which contain the 

CoQC clause and which call for inspection at source. 

f. Personnel performing quality functions will: 

(1) Determine the need for objective evidence. CoQC should be 

requested when the materiel being acquired is critical or safety-critical, 

and: 

(a) The ESA requests that the CoQC clause be used. 

(b) The quality of materiel can be readily ascertained through the use of CoQC. 
(c) Previous, or potential, nonconformances indicate that the CoQC clause is necessary. 

(2) Determine if an additional, extraordinary, review (in excess of QAR 

routine review) is required, i.e., by the ESA, ICP QA person, and 

laboratory. 

(a) If the ESA has requested review of the CoQC, the Contracting Officer should be 

advised to include this submission requirement in the contract. 

(b) Determine if verification of the certification is necessary and request the Product 

Verification Manager to make the necessary arrangements for the testing. 

(3) Determine whether the DLAD 4105.1 clauses for Measuring and 

Test Equipment and Product Verification Testing are required. 

(4) Input CoQC requirements in advance of contracting into the 

automated systems to the maximum extent possible. 

(5) Review all (source and destination inspection) contracts where the 

CoQC clause has been requested, to assure that the CoQC has been 

included. 

10. MANUFACTURING PROCESS CONTROLS 

a. An additional contract quality requirement on Manufacturing Process Controls and InProcess Inspections is identified in subpart 46.202-3(90) of DLAD 4105.1, Defense 

Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD). This requirement is to be used when stronger 

control of manufac-turing operations and inspections is needed, e.g., controlled processes 

and operations are essential, or the item contains product characteristics that cannot be 

inspected at a later stage. Specific criteria for use of this requirement for clothing and 

textiles are provided in subpart 46.202-3(90) of the DLAD. 

b. Personnel performing quality functions will: 

(1) Determine the need for stronger manufacturing controls for specific 

items or contractors. The DLAD 4105.1 clause should be requested 

when: 

(a) The ESA requests that the stronger control be exercised. 

(b) Previous, or potential, nonconformances indicate that stronger control is necessary. 

(c) Stronger manufacturing process controls and in-process inspections are required to 

ensure the integrity of the product. 

(2) Input the manufacturing process controls, DLAD 4105.1 clause, 

into the automated systems to the maximum extent possible. 

(3) Evaluate requests for waiver of the contract requirement and 

document justifications to change the requirement. 

11. BID SAMPLES 

a. An invitation for bid may require bidders to furnish a sample of the product offered. 

This sample is called a "Bid Sample." Bid samples are only used to determine the 
responsiveness of the bid and are not used to determine ability to produce the required 

items. 

b. Bidders will be required to submit bid samples when there are characteristics of a 

product that cannot be adequately described in the applicable specification or purchase 

description. The reasons for requesting a bid sample must be justified, documented, and 

included in contract files unless the requirement for a bid sample is specifically required 

by the formal specification applicable to the contract. 

c. Personnel responsible for quality will determine the requirement for bid samples and 

take the following actions: 

(1) Determine if there are characteristics of a product which cannot be 

adequately described in the applicable specification or purchase 

description. 

(2) When a bid sample is required, identify the following: 

(a) Number of units required and, where appropriate, the size of the bid samples. 

(b) Characteristics for which bid samples will be tested or evaluated (if testing is 

required, arrange for the testing of samples through the Product Verification Manager). 

(c) Time required by the QA element to process the bid samples. 

(d) Whether or not the approved bid sample will be used as a production standard. 

(3) Coordinate with the SPA when bid samples are not considered 

necessary despite a specification bid sample requirement. 

(4) Justify and document the justification in the contract file. 

(5) Notify the Contracting Officer of test results and results of 

evaluation in a timely manner. 

(6) Return bid samples to bidder, through the Contracting Officer, 

when requested by the Contracting Officer, or arrange for disposal of 

the bid samples. 

12. FIRST ARTICLE REQUIREMENTS 

a. FAR, subpart 9.3, sets forth the policy, implementing instructions, and contract clauses 

with respect to First Article testing and approval. First Article testing and approval 

consists of the testing and/or examination of items submitted by a contractor prior to 

regular production on a contract or purchase order followed by the preparation/evaluation 

of attendant test reports. First articles may be tested at the contractor's facility or at a 

Government facility, depending upon contractual arrangements. Except in unusual 

procurements, First Article clauses are called for in production contracts only. 

b. Expanded First Article is another technique for examination of items. This is a 

procedure where adaptability of a new specification to mass production methods is 

validated at the same time that supply quantities are being acquired. First Article approval 

tests are performed, participated in, or witnessed by Government personnel. The First 

Article test report is prepared by the contractor or the Government test facility conducting 

the test program. 
c. The purpose of First Article testing and approval is to assure that the contractor can 

furnish a product that meets contract technical and QA requirements, and therefore 

minimizes risks for both the contractor and the Government. First Article tests at 

contractors' plants and independent test facilities will be monitored by the CAO or other 

cognizant activity prescribed by the contract. QA personnel at the ICP will provide, or 

arrange for, specialized commodity expertise or related technical assistance when 

required. The procuring activity and the SPA may elect to participate in the witnessing of 

First Article tests and evaluation of attendant test reports based on such factors as the 

contractor's history and item complexity. 

d. To assist Government and contractor quality assurance personnel during the production 

phase, ICPs will ensure that contractual coverage is provided to require at least one 

approved First Article unit be held by the contractor at the production facility until all 

production quantities have been produced and accepted. This First Article unit can be 

referred to as a production or manufacturing standard/guide and baseline for examination 

when defects are reported on delivered materiel or problems are uncovered during 

production. In addition, good technical judgment must be applied in determining the total 

number of First Article units to be tested for a given contract. This number must be a 

sufficient quantity to clearly demonstrate materials used, manufacturing processes 

employed, workmanship standards utilized, and the methods employed for the control of 

quality are capable of producing an item that meets all the requirements specified in the 

contract. 

e. First Article inspection and testing requirements cannot be generalized or assumed. 

They must be clearly stated in the contract. It should be noted that First Article tests may 

be more detailed and extensive than those required for normal production. 

f. QA personnel will, upon receipt of a purchase request, or through evaluations 

generated by other actions: 

(1) Assemble the technical data package and review it for First Article 

test requirements. The FAR, paragraph 9.3, provides the criteria where 

First Article approvals are particularly appropriate. However, if there is 

no specification requirement for First Article testing and approval, 

consideration should be given to its use if the product has a history of 

unsatisfactory quality or if the product is not adequately defined, i.e., 

manufacturing processes could vary and affect the product. Where it is 

determined that First Article approval is required, or if the ESA 

requests First Article testing, that requirement should be added to the 

mechanized contracting system for future acquisitions. 

(2) Make a determination as to whether the contractor or the 

Government should be responsible for First Article testing when not 

specified by the applicable contract document. This determination 

should be based on whether or not potential contractors have, or can 

arrange for, the necessary test equipment, facilities, and personnel as 

well as consideration of other factors of efficiency and economy that 

are applicable to the particular circumstances. If a decision is made that 

the Government must perform First Article tests, the place, cost, and 

time of testing will be determined and arrangements will be made for 

funding and the issuing of project orders as required. The ICP Product 

Verification Manager shall be consulted for assistance to arrange 

Government Testing. 

(3) Recommend the insertion of the applicable clause set forth in FAR, 

paragraphs 52.209-3 or 52.209-4, and develop the following 
information that clearly describes the details of the First Article Test for 

inclusion in, or reference by, the solicitation and resulting contract: 

(a) The specific First Article tests and evaluations to be conducted by the 

contractor/Government, including the sequence of processes, testing, and evaluations, 

where required. 

(b) The number of units to be tested. 

(c) The data required. 

(d) The criteria (e.g., accept/reject numbers) for determining conformance to the First 

Article requirement specified. Collaboration with the Military Services may be necessary 

to accomplish this. References to specific paragraphs in the specification are required. 

Describing First Article requirements in general terms (i.e., visual, dimensional, 

workmanship, specification compliance, and meeting contract requirements) is 

prohibited. This is necessary to ensure that the contractor and the Government (in-plant 

QAR, ACO, and PCO) clearly understand and interpret contract terms and conditions. 

(e) The format of the test report (e.g., test reports prepared in accordance with MIL-STD831, Test Reports, Preparation of) for tests and evaluations to be conducted by the 

contractor. 

(f) Who has authority for acceptance of the First Article (i.e., the Government QAR or 

the PCO). 

(g) Time required for the First Article evaluation (including testing, if appropriate). 

(h) Location where evaluation of the First Article and/or test report will be performed 

(i.e., at the ICP, the plant site, or at a Government testing facility). 

(i) Number of approved First Articles to be held by the contractors as a manufacturing 

standard/guide. 

(j) Statement that the First Article must be manufactured at the facility in which that item 

is to be produced under the contract. 

(k) The data required including the data to be submitted to the Government in the First 

Article test report. When the Govern-ment is responsible for such testing, state the tests to 

which the First Article will be subjected. 

g. Review the quality history of the apparent successful bidder and make appropriate 

recommendations to the Contracting Officer when waiver of the requirement for First 

Article testing is considered (see FAR, paragraph 9.306(c)). 

h. Arrange, through the ICP's Product Verification Manager, for any testing to be 

performed by the Government. 

i. Arrange for the monitoring of, or participation in, contractor testing by Government 

representatives as necessary. 
j. Arrange for evaluation of the First Article and/or test report. A complete review of the 

test report should include: 

(1) Legibility and proper format of report. 

(2) Completeness of the report to include: signature and comments of 

the QAR, identifying information (i.e., contract number, NSN, 

nomenclature, contractor, and facility), and required materiel 

certifications. 

(3) Correctness of test methods and standards. 

(4) Proper preparation for, and performance of, the test. This includes, 

but is not limited to, checking to determine that: the test was 

completed, specific requirements were met, the correct 

drawings/specifications were used, the current items were tested, and 

the correct quantities were tested. 

k. Advise the Contracting Officer whether the First Article should be approved or 

disapproved. For disapprovals, the reasons for the decision must be given and the 

contractor informed as to whether a second First Article will be required. 

l. Arrange for the return of samples to the contractor or for proper disposal as appropriate. 

13. TESTING REQUIREMENTS 

a. If specific tests need to be performed by the contractor, during or after production, to 

determine an item's conformance to contractual requirements, they must be included in 

the contract. When there are specialized verification tests to be performed by the 

Government, requirements and arrangements for these tests must also be included in the 

contract. 

b. Personnel determining testing requirements will: 

(1) Review technical data, specifications, item and contractor history, 

and contract information to determine the need for testing. 

(2) Determine what testing is required, and whether the contractor or 

the Government should perform the testing. To the maximum extent, 

sufficient laboratory testing should be performed before acceptance of 

the items regardless of the location of the testing. If Government testing 

is indicated, The ICP Product Verification Manager shall be consulted 

to determine whether the testing should be performed at Government 

testing facilities or commercial laboratories. 

(3) Develop testing requirements. Testing requirements developed will 

identify the characteristics and functional requirements of the item to 

be tested, but they will not normally specify the model of equipment to 

be used. 

(a) Each test specified should be for a known and completely understood purpose and 

should be as simple as possible without loss of test integrity. 

(b) Standard tests in accordance with Federal or Military Test Methods Standards or 

Industry Standards should normally be used. The use of standard tests simplifies the 

administration of test requirements by eliminating the need to develop a specific test 
procedure for each item requiring testing. When standard tests are not available for 

reference, or procedures are mandatory to assure that contractual performance is 

demonstrated, appropriate test methods and procedures will be developed. 

(c) Assistance may be obtained from the ICP's Technical personnel/elements, the 

designated Test and Evaluation (T & E) point of contact, the ESA, and the SPA. DLA 

personnel may contact the ESA and SPA directly to discuss testing and product quality 

issues. Ambiguous testing requirements referenced in specifications will be referred to 

the SPA for resolution. 

(d) Assure testing requirements are identified as to who will perform them. 

(e) Determine and specify the test reports required and the submission requirements. 

(4) Provide the provisions and detailed test requirements to the 

Contracting Officer with recommendations for inclusion in solicitations 

and resulting contracts. Place test requirements in the automated 

contracting systems to the maximum extent possible. 

(a) Assure that contracts requiring Government testing include provisions for proper 

selection of test articles, contractor packing, and delivery to a designated lab-oratory. 

Contracts, including requirements for laboratory verifi-cation testing, must include 

instructions for disposition and use of test articles. When contracts include requirements 

for Government laboratory testing, specify required QAR actions in the QALI that is 

prepared for the contract. Prepare and furnish a QALI to the QAR when the results of 

Government testing of contract materiel indicates a need for special Government QA 

attention during production, processing, contractor testing, or Government testing, prior 

to acceptance of materiel. 

(b) Through proper channels, obtain concurrence of the Military Surgeons General on 

laboratory testing requirements involving the wholesomeness and sanitation aspects of 

subsistence items. 

(5) Arrange for DCMC QAR or Government/Commercial Laboratories 

to perform test surveillance/ validation or to verify compliance with 

contract technical requirements when necessary. 

(a) Laboratory tests may be requested by DCMC QARs to verify results of contractor 

tests, or compliance of delivered items with contract requirements. Verification tests 

should be required if the contractor's test results are considered unreliable, or if accepted 

product is suspected of not conforming to contract requirements. Contracts do not have to 

be modified if test samples are selected from delivered shipments or depot stocks. 

Contract modification may be necessary if samples are to be selected at the contractor's 

plant, the contractor is asked to perform tests not required by the contract, or the 

contractor is asked to package and ship samples to the designated test laboratory. 

Requirements for contractors to perform any actions not included in their contract must 

be referred to the Contracting Officer for decision and direction. 

(6) Initiate requests for laboratory testing to the PVP Office. QA 

personnel may request tests when necessary. DD Form 1222, Request 

for and Results of Tests, is a convenient method of requesting tests, or 
test surveillance that should be used when other forms are not 

contractually specified. Requests made by DCMC QARs should be 

formalized on DD Forms 1222. 

(7) Review Contracts to determine if recommended test requirements 

were incorporated. 

14. METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION 

a. ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, American National Standard for Calibration - Calibration 

Laboratories and Measuring and Test Equipment General Requirements, or ISO 10012-1, 

Quality Assurance Requirements for Measuring Equipment - Part 1: Metrological 

Confirmation System for Measuring Equipment will be specified in those contracts where 

the technical nature of the item requires the contractor to maintain a calibration program 

to assure delivery of products of the required quality. When MIL-STD-45662, 

Calibration Systems Requirements, is required in drawings or specifications, the 

ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 or the ISO 10012-1 will be used. 

b. The Calibration systems requirements may be tailored when items to be purchased do 

not require a full calibration program. 

c. Inclusion of calibration requirements in a contract when it is not required by 

specification or drawing in the contract package will be limited to those instances where 

tractability of calibration of contractor production or inspection equipment is necessary to 

assure compatibility of items purchased with equipment being supported or to assure that 

the items purchased will serve their intended purpose. 

d. Calibration requirements normally will not be included in contracts for commercial or 

off-the-shelf items. If they are required, justification must be prepared and submitted to 

the contracting officer for preparation of a waiver. e. Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic 

Equipment used by ICPs or Depots in the determination of contract compliance of 

delivered items or verification of contractor performance shall be calibrated in 

accordance with DLAR 4155.21 at appropriate periodic intervals. When ICPs note 

inadequacies or errors in calibration of equipment or gages used to determine 

acceptability of items purchased by that ICP, affected depots will be immediately notified 

orally and in writing. 

f. Within available technical capability and resources, ICPs will provide technical 

assistance in metrology and calibration areas related to inspection of products purchased 

by that ICP when requested by a depot. When technical capability is not available, ICPs 

will request assistance from HQ DLA or the Military Service element being supported by 

the items purchased. 

15. WARRANTIES 

a. A warranty is a contractual promise by the seller that extends his liability for defective 

items for a stated period of time after Government acceptance. Its primary purpose is to 

allow the Government an additional period of time after acceptance in which to 

determine whether suppliers' products conform to con-tractual requirements and take 

remedial action if necessary. Due to the increased liability associated with warranties, 

they also serve to foster increased incentive among suppliers to provide quality products 

or services to the Government. 

b. The PCO must consider several factors in determining whether to use a warranty. 

These factors include: 
(1) Nature of the item and its end use. Factors that may support the use 

of a warranty are as follows: 

(a) Complexity and function of the item makes it difficult to detect all possible defects 

prior to acceptance. 

(b) Lack of available technical knowledge or adequate QAPs within the Government. 

(c) Government inspection alone is not likely to provide adequate protection. 

(d) Potential of significant harm to the Government if the items are found to be defective. 

(2) Cost of the warranty related to its possible benefits. 

(3) The Government's ability to enforce the warranty (administration). 

(4) Whether or not the item (or class of items) is customarily warranted 

in the trade (trade practice). 

(5) Available quality history associated with the item. 

c. QA personnel should consider the criteria in paragraph b above and review the item's 

quality history. When, based on these factors, personnel responsible for quality 

requirements determine a warranty would be beneficial, they will recommend to the PCO 

that the item be purchased under warranty. 

(1) Even when one or more of the conditions listed under paragraph b 

above exists and the Government has the ability to enforce the 

warranty, if the quality history of the item has been good, QA 

personnel may determine that use of a warranty is not necessary. 

(2) Even when none of the above conditions appears to apply and the 

Government has the ability to enforce a warranty, if the quality history 

of the item shows significant supplier-related quality problems, 

personnel responsible for quality requirements may determine that use 

of a warranty would be beneficial. 

(3) If the Government does not have the ability to effectively enforce a 

warranty, its use would serve no meaningful purpose and a warranty 

should not be recommended regardless of the item's nature or quality 

history. 

d. If a warranty is determined necessary, personnel responsible for quality requirements 

should recommend to the PCO those items (or class of items) which should be purchased 

under a warranty. When recommending the use of a warranty to the PCO, the rationale 

for this recommendation should be provided to include pertinent information relating to 

the nature of the item, warranty enforcement ability and quality history if available. 

e. The PCO is required to take all factors, including cost, and trade practice 

considerations, into account in determining whether a warranty should be used or not. 

Therefore, although those factors may justify the use of a warranty, the PCO may choose 

not to follow their recommendation based on these other factors. 

f. When warranties are to be used, personnel responsible for quality requirements should 

be prepared to assist the PCO in tailoring the warranty clause to fit the individual item (or 

class of items) since the terms and conditions of a warranty clause may vary by item and 

even with the circumstances of a specific contract. 
16. STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL (SPC) 

a. SPC is an element of a process improvement system that provides a method of 

statistically monitoring and controlling processes of manufacturing through the concept 

of "continuous quality improvement." The contractor first subjects the production process 

to a process capability study. The contractor then compares the results to specification 

requirements and uses the data to develop an SPC plan. The plan directs 

operators/inspectors/ management when to periodically monitor predetermined product 

characteristics. Measurements are recorded and plotted on control charts. The control 

charts have computed "control limits," which are drawn as upper and lower limit lines on 

the charts. The control limits are of assistance in judging the significance of variation of 

the process characteristic around the target value. Plotted points falling outside of the 

control lines during manufacture are a statistical signal indicating that assignable causes 

have entered the process and the process must be investigated. 

b. SPC helps distinguish between patterns of variation that are chance (random)/merit no 

investigation or assignable/indicative of trouble. SPC uses a group of statistical and 

problem-solving techniques arranged in a logical sequence to provide a clear picture of 

where and why problems exist. With this information, managers can make the decisions 

necessary to solve these problems and make improvements in both product and process. 

c. A QAP, which has been fully coordinated with both DLA Legal and DLA Acquisition, 

has been developed to implement SPC, (figure 16-1). This SPC QAP should be cited in 

DLA contracts when it is appropriate to require the use of SPC by the contractor. To 

support this policy, personnel responsible for quality requirements shall assist the 

Contracting Officer in determining whether the SPC QAP should be included in DLA 

procurements which require Higher-Level Quality Requirements, and when either a 

requirement exists to control processes, or when continuous improvement in quality is 

desired. 

d. In addition to the above policy criteria, SPC should be considered when stronger 

control of manufacturing operations and inspections is needed, when controlled processes 

and operations are essential to prevent nonconformance, or when the item contains 

product characteristics which cannot be inspected at a later stage. Prime candidates for 

SPC include complex/critical items, major equipment/systems, high volume 

procurements, or where the technical requirements of the contract are such as to require 

control. 

e. The person performing QA functions can assure the manufacturing the contractor 

monitors processes by recommending that the Contracting Officer cite the SPC QAP in a 

contract. The SPC QAP may be requested as determined by past Quality history, 

technical description of item, complexity and criticality of application. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISION 

MANDATORY USE OF STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROLS 

A. GENERAL REQUIREMENT: The contractor agrees to manage and improve process 

performance through the evaluation of the quality of the product at the prime contractor 

and/or subcontractor facilities, using Statistical Process Control (SPC) techniques. 

1. Minimum criteria are established in the former American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) Z1.1, Z1.2 and Z1.3, now the American Society of Quality Control (ASQC), 

standards B.1, B.2 and B.3. Alternate SPC techniques, such as short run methods, are also 

allowed where applicable. 
2. This Quality Assurance Provision applies to all work performed at the prime contractor 

and/or subcontractor facilities. 

B. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 

1. The contractor shall identify the characteristics to be controlled using SPC techniques 

to the Contract Administration Office (CAO) Government Representative for a 

determination of acceptability prior to the initiation of First Article or normal production. 

The characteristics requiring control will be those characteristics providing the best 

assurance of product conformance to contract requirements. In addition to the 

characteristics identified by the contractor, the following Contracting Office designated 

characteristics will be controlled using SPC techniques_______________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________. 

The contractor should identify in writing any changes to the characteristics initially 

identified (either contractor or Government designated), to be controlled using SPC to the 

CAO Government Representative for review and determination of acceptability. 

Proposed changes to Contracting Office-designated characteristics will not be 

implemented until the Contracting Officer provides written approval. 

2. The contractor shall write a plan implementing SPC techniques and make it available 

for government review prior to initiation of first article or normal production. This plan 

shall cover as a minimum: 

a. Operations where SPC will be implemented. 

b. SPC methods to be applied. 

c. Process capability studies to be completed. 

d. Methods for control of vendor quality. 

e. The sample size and frequency of measurements. 

f. The criteria to be used in modifying sample size and frequency of measurements. 

g. The audit procedures used to validate the accuracy, adequacy and interpretation of 

control charts. 

h. Training and qualification requirements for personnel involved in SPC. 

i. Criteria for determining an out of control condition. 

j. Identification of the responsibility for performing measurements and corrective actions. 

k. General policy for applying SPC along with goals and commitments. 

l. Documents and records utilized in the SPC program. 

m. The corrective action procedures to be used and actions to be taken upon statistical 

signal or an out-of-tolerance condition. This plan is subject to disapproval by the 

Government following a determination that it lacks the capability to provide control of 

contract requirements. 
3. The contractor agrees to maintain current, and make available, all documents/records 

required by the SPC plan for Government review at any time throughout the life of the 

contract and for three years after final delivery on the contract. 

4. When processes reach a state of statistical control and the product conforms 

completely to contract requirements, the contractor may petition the Procuring 

Contracting Officer (PCO), through the CAO, to reduce the contract acceptance sampling 

requirements. Previous contractual acceptance sampling criteria will not be changed until 

the PCO provides written approval. The Government reserves the right to return to 

original acceptance sampling requirements at any indication of a loss of process control 

or a degradation in product conformance to contract requirements. 

Figure 16-1 

f. Personnel responsible for quality requirements will: 

(1) Determine applicability of SPC and recommend inclusion of the 

QAP in the appropriate solicitations and resulting contracts. 

(a) Upon receipt of the purchase request, or through evaluations generated by other 

actions, determine whether the SPC QAP should be incorporated in the solicitation. 

Consider all available technical data and data from sources such as: Quality complaints, 

records of Preaward Surveys, Postaward Orientation Conferences, special inspection, and 

any other factor bearing on item or contracting action. 

(b) Consider past problems (such as PVP/lab test failures, waivers, PQDRs), 

critical/major characteristics, and field reports in order to select items/characteristics for 

SPC application. 

(2) Determine and specify to the Contracting Officer, the minimum 

characteristics to be controlled by SPC and enter as part of the QAP. 

Without the minimum characteristics, the contractor as a result of 

Pareto analysis and critical characteristic criteria as described in the 

QAP would determine the SPC application. 

(3) Review contract documents to assure the SPC QAP is 

administratively correct and technically sound for the item being 

purchased, and take action to make changes when necessary. If the 

recommended clause has not been incorporated, a recommendation for 

inclusion shall be forwarded to the Contracting Officer. 

(4) Provide support on SPC issues to the Contracting Officer and other 

Government activities (e.g., DCMC), throughout the contracting 

process. 

(5) Use the SPC QAP (figure 16-1). 

17. DEVELOPMENT OF STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES 

a. Under proper circumstances, sampling will provide an economic means of determining 

the probable quality level of a lot or batch of units of product of a single type, grade, size, 

and composition which are manufactured under essentially the same conditions and 

essentially at the same time. However, sampling plans are based upon the laws of 
probability, and when they are used, the user must assume the risk that the sample may 

not be representative of the quality level of the lot. When a decision is made to employ 

sampling techniques, a comprehensive evaluation must be made of the capability, 

limitations, and risks of the sampling plan selected. 

b. The use of statistical sampling plans does not mean that the contractor has the right to 

knowingly supply any defective materiel to the Government, nor does it mean that the 

Government will knowingly accept defective materiel. 

c. Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs), Lot Tolerance Percent Defective (LTPD), and the 

"Point-System" point counts have the effect of contractually authorizing the acceptance 

of nonconforming materiel. They inhibit quality improvement since they imply that 

defects are allowable. The use of these practices must be eliminated wherever feasible. 

d. Personnel responsible for quality requirements shall ensure that each solicitation and 

resultant contract, by contract clause, exhibit or specification reference, contains the 

necessary requirements to provide an acceptable product. Statistical expertise in quality 

assurance will be estab-lished at each ICP. Personnel will: 

(1) Develop/review sampling requirements and accept/reject criteria in 

specifications, purchase descriptions, QAPs, storage standards, 

maintenance instructions and Commercial Activity Performance Work 

Statements, and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans. 

(2) Take the following actions for AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts: 

(a) Use contractual means to override specification AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts 

when specifications must be used that contain AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts, and the 

specifications are not prepared/controlled by ICPs. These contractual means will require 

rejection of any lot of materiel if even one defect is found in the sample inspections/tests 

(i.e., require sampling plans that accept on zero defects and reject on one or more 

defect(s)). The contractual means may include a material Acceptance Statement made 

part of the Procurement Item Description (PID) or Supplemental Descriptive Data Table 

(SDDT) in the CTDF or a QAP placed in the contract. These c=0 (accept on zero defects) 

sampling plans will be constructed to provide less risk to the Government (of accepting 

lots of materiel with defects) than the AQL, LTDP, or point count sampling plans that 

they replace. 

(b) Revise specifications (before the end of their current five-year review cycle) to 

remove the AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts when the specifications (including 

commercial item descriptions) contain AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts, and the 

specifications are prepared/controlled by ICPs. The revised c=0 sampling plans will be 

constructed to provide less risk to the Government than the AQL, LTPD, or point count 

sampling plans that they replace. The AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts may be replaced 

with one or more of the following: [1] c=0 (accept on zero defects) sampling plans. [2] 

100 percent inspection/test. [3] Use of Statistical Process Control (SPC). [4] Use of 

process capability index (Cp) and process performance index (Cpk) to achieve variability 

reduction. [5] A Part Per Million (PPM) quality reporting system that accumulates data 

from individual lots using c=0 sampling plans to establish an ongoing quality assessment. 

[6] Destructive tests with fixed sample sizes and explicit accept/reject criteria. 
(c) Take immediate action to revise the specification as outlined in subparagraph (2)(b) 

above, in lieu of a contractual override as outlined in subparagraph (2)(a) above, in those 

situations where the ICPs are responsible for the specifications and standardized 

sampling plans used for both commercial and military customers, and the use of different 

sampling plans will cause procurement problems. 

(d) Some exceptions to subparagraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) above are: [1] The nature of the 

commodity is such that it is necessary to be consistent with the industry's state-of-the-art. 

[2] The cost of 100 percent conformance is excessive for non-critical application items 

such as roofing nails, common incandescent light bulbs, clothing and textiles. [3] The 

commodity is a medical product under the jurisdiction of Federal laws and regulations 

administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [4] The commodity is a 

subsistence product under the juris-diction of Federal laws and regulations administered 

by the FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or U.S. Department of Commerce 

(USDC). 

(e) Exceptions to subparagraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) above must only be approved by the 

ICP Commander or the Commander's designated repre-sentatives. Approved exceptions, 

with supporting rationale, will be documented in appropriate files. Supporting rationale 

will include market investigations that substantiate that AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts 

represent the best or only acceptable practice for measuring quality, when applicable. The 

exceptions will be periodically reviewed by the ICPs to determine if conditions have 

changed to permit the elimination of AQLs, LTPD, and/or point counts from DLA 

contracts and/or specifications for these items. The ICP will decide how often these 

periodic reviews of exceptions will be performed. 

(3) Where a contractor submits a sampling plan, personnel will review 

the plan to assure that it contains the confidence and quality levels that 

are required. 

(4) When "isolated" lots of materiel are procured (i.e., the units of 

product or service are not produced in a continuing series of lots or 

batches over a period of time), the use of AQL plans does not assure 

the Government sufficient protection. 

(5) Develop/review statistical criteria for evaluating contractors and 

item performance history. 

(6) Perform trend analysis and compute confidence levels and other 

statistical measures. 

(7) Perform an analysis of Complaints and present such analyses to 

management. 

(8) Provide training to QA and other personnel on the interpretation and 

use of statistical techniques. 

e. Considerable formal training and preparation in statistics are required for the planning, 

interpretation, and evaluation of statistical investigations. QA personnel can be trained 

via on-the-job training; however, as a minimum, Quality Assurance Specialists shall 

complete the Statistical Quality Control course, Q63, identified in DLAD 4155.7, Quality 

Assurance Technical Development Program for ICPs and Defense Depots. 
18. PREAWARD ACQUISITION SUPPORT. It is essential that adequate quality and 

reliability support be provided to the ICP contracting mission. QA support to the 

preaward contracting effort is not limited to the assignment of QAPs, but continues 

throughout the preaward and contracting cycle. Personnel assigned to perform quality 

functions will: 

a. Provide provisioning input to Military Services and to the ICP's Contracting and 

Supply personnel regarding Quality Assurance issues that affect provisioning. This can 

include areas such as test requirements that may require longer lead times, additional 

quantities required for destructive testing, and potential quality problems. 

b. Provide support for item transfers. This includes identification of quality aspects and 

considerations that must be made for items to be transferred, determining the quality 

information and technical data that is required to be provided by the organization 

transferring the item, assisting in obtaining the technical data, and identifying items that 

should be transferred back to Military Services due to quality considerations. 

c. Process MIPRs. See paragraph 19. 

d. Perform Preaward Survey actions. See paragraph 20. 

e. Assist in development of Acquisition Plans. See paragraph 21. 

f. Review requests for the waiver of contract requirements and contracting actions that 

are related to quality. The review shall be based upon contractor and item history and will 

consider the circumstances of each case. When contract requirement waivers are 

repetitive, consideration should be given to revising the QAP requirements. 

Recommendations will be provided to the Contracting Officer and each request shall be 

documented with the reasons for the original requirement and the reasons for waiver of 

that requirement. 

(1) First Article requirement waiver procedure is provided in paragraph 

12. 

(2) Preaward survey waiver procedure is provided in paragraph 20. 

g. Provide contractor and item quality performance history to the Contracting Officer and 

other Government personnel to aid in their preaward decisions. See paragraph 41. 

h. Provide contracting personnel support, as requested, in any source selection action, 

including serving as a member of a Technical Evaluation Panel. 

19. MILITARY INTERDEPARTMENTAL PURCHASE REQUESTS (MIPRs). MIPRs 

are received for processing under the Coordinated Acquisition discussed in DFARS, 

Subpart 208.70. A MIPR, DD Form 448, is a purchase order issued by one Military 

Service Government activity to purchase a specific item not managed by DLA, for the 

MIPR preparing activity. The stocks are usually shipped directly to the location specified 

in the MIPR. The MIPR may contain, or be accompanied by, QALIs for issuance to the 

cognizant CAS component when the contract is awarded. MIPRs, unlike normal 

contracts, do not allow the establishment of QAPs and packaging requirements in 

advance of contracting to eliminate the need for a manual review of each contracting 

action. 

a. Review MIPRs for adequacy. 
(1) Determine that each MIPR clearly indicates the extent of quality 

assurance required of the contractor and CAO. This determination will 

be accomplished through a manual review of each MIPR on an "as 

received" basis. It will specifically result in the development of QAPs 

and contract requirements to incorporate MIPR requirements in the 

contract document, as well as the development and issuance of QALIs, 

as applicable, to the CAO. 

(2) Contact the MIPR-preparing activity to request clarification and 

corrective actions from the MIPR-preparing activity when QA 

requirements stated in the MIPR are found to be inaccurate, 

incomplete, or lacking in clarity to the extent that contracting is 

precluded. These requests will be processed through the respective 

MIPR control point. 

b. Incorporate appropriate QAPs in contract documents to reflect MIPR requirements. 

(1) Obtain approval from the MIPR-preparing activity through the 

MIPR control point for deviations to specifications cited in a MIPR. 

Interim approval may be obtained by telephone but must be verified in 

writing. In the event there has been a revision to the specification 

referenced in a MIPR, the MIPR-preparing activity will be advised of 

the change and instructions will be requested. 

(2) Assure that changes to the QA requirements of MIPRs are 

processed as MIPR amendments. This applies whether the change is 

initiated prior to, or after, conversion to a contract and whether such 

change is initiated by the ICP or requested by the MIPR-preparing 

activity. Changes can be initially provided by telephone but shall be 

confirmed by a MIPR amendment. 

c. Provide postaward contracting support on QA matters for MIPR-generated purchases, 

including the resolution of customer complaints. In accomplishing postaward contracting 

support functions, coordination will be effected with the MIPR-preparing activity as 

required. 

(1) Issue QALIs to provide MIPR inspection instructions to the CAO 

and provide technical assistance to the inspection activity or CAO. 

(2) Participate in postaward orientation conferences as needed. 

(3) Arrange for, or accomplish, all necessary tests and examinations of 

First Article samples. The MIPR will indicate when the MIPRpreparing activity desires to participate in a test. A copy of the test 

results will be provided the MIPR-preparing activity for approval of the 

First Article. If there is unsatisfactory quality history on contractor 

sources that are indicated on the MIPR as approved sources, the MIPRpreparing activity should be advised and instructions requested. 

(4) Evaluate contractor requests for waivers. In this regard QA 

personnel must remember that all waivers/deviations to the stated 

requirements of the MIPR require the approval of the MIPR-preparing 

activity. 

(5) Investigate and resolve customer complaints regarding product 

quality and packaging deficiencies. A complaint received from an 

activity other than the MIPR-preparing activity will first be coordinated 
with the MIPR-preparing activity through the respective MIPR control 

point. Full actions described in paragraph 27 are applicable, including: 

(a) Review of complaint data. 

(b) Categorization of complaint. 

(c) Complaint investigation and resolution for the MIPR-preparing activity, to include 

forwarding copies of the complaint to the cognizant CAS activities for information or 

investigation. 

20. PREAWARD SURVEYS. DLAD 4105.1 requires that Contracting Officers obtain 

information to make a determination regarding responsibility and to determine potential 

contractors' capability. This necessitates the maintenance of contractor performance 

history. Contracting Officers use quality information from many sources, including the 

Defense Logistics Agency Contractor Alert, local contractor performance lists, review of 

contractor performance history (as maintained in manual or automated files, i.e., the 

Quality Evaluation Program (QEP)), or as obtained from the CAO and QA personnel at 

the ICP. Procedures for providing such information are as follows: 

a. Collect appropriate quality history for either the manual or automated systems, for 

determinations of responsibility and determinations of potential contractors' capability. 

b. When requested by the Contracting Officer, or when performing a review of the 

quality history of the item/contractor, analyze the quality history to determine when 

either a specific item or contractor has experienced quality problems in past 

procurements. 

c. Determine whether a Preaward Survey for QA reasons would be appropriate in future 

procurements. If determined to be appropriate, personnel performing quality functions 

shall inform the Contracting Officer, in writing, of this recommendation, providing 

justification as well as the specific QA areas that need to be reviewed during the 

Preaward Survey. The review should include the type of item, criticality, complexity, 

recommendations from the ESA/SPA, and quality history. Quality history data should be 

reviewed for First Article examinations, waiver/deviation history, previous preaward 

data, quality deficiency reports, and any other pertinent data. When notified of a proposed 

Preaward Survey, review the data relating to both the prospective contractor and item(s) 

involved. d. Provide the Contracting Officer with one of the following recommendations, 

as appropriate, with a pertinent summary of available quality history (obtained from the 

Quality Evaluation Program (QEP) or manual system): 

(1) Existing QA data indicates a Preaward Survey is not required. 

(2) A Preaward Survey is necessary based on the quality history of the 

item or the prospective contractor. 

e. In providing quality history to Contracting Officers, complete information will be 

provided for each aspect that affects quality. Contractor quality performance records will 

not be limited to product quality deficiencies, but also will include discrepancies due to 

inadequate packaging, improper or missing documentation, overages, shortages, 

misdirected, and damaged shipments and similar discrepancies, as well as other criteria 

such as delivery performance. 

f. If Contracting Officers determine that there are overriding reasons for awarding a 

contract to a supplier who has an unsatisfactory quality history, the contract file will be 
documented accordingly, and a Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI) shall be 

used/submitted to the activity responsible for Government Quality Assurance at source or 

destination. Document these actions in the quality history. 

g. Provide on-site representation at Preaward Surveys when required. Normally, 

representations will be limited to those cases when: 

(1) Representation is requested by the Contracting Officer or by HQ 

DLA. 

(2) Special commodity expertise and quality history information are 

only available at the ICP. 

(a) If the QA aspects of a Preaward Survey can be effectively performed by a CAS 

Quality Representative, ICP QA personnel presence is normally not required. 

(b) ICP QA personnel should only attend on-site Preaward Surveys when the specific QA 

requirements of the item on the pending contract require application of their commodity 

expertise to evaluate the prospective contractor's capability. 

(c) If circumstances require ICP participation in the on-site Preaward Survey, they will be 

prepared to actively participate and apply their judgment and expertise in evaluating the 

prospective contractor's capability. Their findings should be coordinated with any CAS 

Quality Representatives on the survey team and incorporated into the official report 

submitted by the CAO. Participation in on-site Preaward Surveys by ICP personnel will 

be reported as QSMVs. 

h. Review the results of all Preaward Surveys containing information questioning a 

contractor's quality control capability. In addition, coordination with contracting 

personnel should be effected to allow review of other Preaward Survey results where 

quality was reviewed and found to be adequate. This is especially important for Preaward 

Survey results involving items or contractors for which there was a previous 

recommendation for performance of a Preaward Survey based on unsatisfactory quality 

history. These reviews will be conducted whether or not a ICP representative participated 

in the on-site Preaward Survey. 

(1) Reviews should ensure that all pertinent quality factors were 

considered. 

(2) The reviews will be performed in an expeditious manner to prevent 

undue delays in the contracting process. 

(3) If the review reveals possible problems in the quality area, and 

contract award is made, this will be brought to the attention of the 

responsible contract administration activity and a QALI issued if 

considered necessary. 

21. ACQUISITION PLANS AND ASSOCIATED SOLICITATIONS. Written 

acquisition plans document the objectives of the acquisition and details of the 

considerations and alternatives that have been evaluated. Personnel performing quality 

functions provide support to the acquisition planner regarding the development of quality 

aspects of the acquisition plan and review and evaluations of other areas for their effect 

upon the quality of the materiel to be acquired. Personnel performing quality aspects of 

acquisition planning will: 
a. Serve as members of the acquisition planner's team when requested. 

b. Provide quality-related solicitation plans. This includes: 

(1) Complete, adequate, and current QAPs. 

(2) Plan of performance, inspection and acceptance points. 

(3) Contract quality requirements. 

(4) Quality considerations of Government versus contractor 

performance, i.e., Government Furnished Material, Government 

Furnished Equipment. 

(5) Discussion of methods to be used to determine quality/compliance 

with requirements. Consider and include: 

(a) First Article test requirements. 

(b) Production tests. 

(c) In-process surveillance, inspection and acceptance criteria. 

(d) Special test requirements and location of testing. 

(e) Alternative for test requirements and criteria for waiving test requirements. 

(f) Use of CoC. 

(g) Use of CoQC. 

(6) Requirements for use of QPL, QSL, qualified manufacturer's lists, 

or other qualification requirements (provide number of 

products/sources on qualification lists and describe plans for qualifying 

additional products/sources). 

(7) Requirements for certification, licensing, or approval by 

Government control agencies. 

(8) Reporting requirements for production surveillance and production 

progress and description of any reliability and maintainability 

requirements. 

(9) Planned use of warranties. 

(10) Plans to use test and evaluation methods (i.e., lab testing, receipt 

inspection, product audits. Plans for other Quality assurance support 

actions as provided by this manual. 

c. Determine and provide item quality performance history, for the same or similar 

supplies and services, including customer complaints, quality history, and congressional 

inquiry history. 

d. Provide contractor quality history for anticipated sources to be solicited. 
e. Determine, document, and advise the acquisition planner of the effects upon quality for 

alternative supplies and sources, and tradeoff considerations of price differences, quality, 

and acquisition/production lead time. 

22. Prime Vendor and Performance-based Service Contracting (PBSC). 

a. Quality support must be provided to Contracting Officers to define, analyze, and 

categorize support functions and tasks for the purpose of contracting with private industry 

for services and support activities. This can include the evaluation of present Government 

functions for possible conversion to performance by contractor personnel. 

b. Functional personnel develop the contract statement of work that is performance 

oriented. These statements are referred to as Performance Work Statements (PWS). The 

PWS describes the effort in terms of objective, measurable performance standards 

(outputs). Each PWS should have a companion Quality Assurance Plan which measures 

contractor performance against the performance standards. 

c. When developing or reviewing PWSs and QAPs, personnel should assure that they 

contain: 

(1) The basic QA policy that should be incorporated clearly in PWS 

definitions, performance requirements, and technical exhibits, is the 

requirement that quality control is a contractor responsibility. 

(2) Clear definition of Quality Control requirements/system that is 

required of the Contractor. Contract Quality requirements provided in 

FAR 46.202 and 46.203, and paragraph 6 of this instruction, should be 

specified. 

(3) Outcomes that can be measured and monitored. This includes: 

(a) Performance standards that can be used as criteria to judge acceptable and nonacceptable performance. 

(b) Performance standards that are appropriate for the type of service required, e.g., 

critical services should have stricter standards and low ADD requirements in comparison 

to AQLs or number of customer complaints allowable for non-critical services. The 

performance requirement summary should not indicate which method of surveillance will 

be used by the Government. 

(4) Definition of Quality Assurance (Surveillance) that MAY be 

performed by the Government. These are referred to as Quality 

Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASP). Whether all of these elements 

are used is a determination of the person performing quality functions, 

and all of these elements should be available to be invoked when 

needed. Quality Assurance surveillance methods should not be 

restrictive, i.e., the Government COR needs the freedom to change 

methods of surveillance as needed. The Quality Assurance methods 

should include planned surveillance methods appropriate to the 

criticality and frequency of each task specified in the PWS. These 

should include: 

(a) Initial assessments/audits of the contractor's quality system to determine if the 

contractor's quality system that is actually implemented is as stated in the contractor's 

proposals and is effective. 
(b) Review of performance metrics that are maintained by the contractor. Access to the 

contractor's management information system should be specified as a requirement in the 

contract to enable this review. The review may include such things as process control 

records, type and frequency of replacement items or services requested, customer 

complaints, and evaluations of effectiveness of the contractor's quality system. 

(c) Performance evaluations against product delivered or services performed. Procedures 

for performing product quality assurance performance evaluations should be specified or 

negotiated with the contractor. For product inspection/testing, establishment of 

procedures for a sampling methodology, selection, shipment, replacement of samples, 

reports format, and the transmission of product verification results to the contractor 

should be defined. Results of random and directed inspection/testing need to be 

maintained in a format that is usable to contracting personnel, integrated process teams 

and future technical panels as required. Any random/directed performance evaluation of 

product should only be to monitor contractor performance and not to accept or reject 

product or services that are provided. 

(5) Other elements depending on the scope of the contract and the 

nature of the items/materiel provided, warranty provisions, product 

liability, and recoupment provisions may also be defined in the 

solicitations or defined during negotiations. 

23. POSTAWARD ACQUISITION SUPPORT. QA support to the contracting effort is 

not finished when the contract is awarded. Personnel responsible for performing Quality 

Assurance functions will be responsive to requests for QA action from other ICP 

personnel, and respond to these requests using the most current data available. A 

summary of post-award actions is as follows: 

a. Review contract documents, to assure that QAPs are administratively correct and 

technically sound for the item being purchased, and taking action to make changes when 

necessary. SPA approval must be obtained prior to amending any specification 

requirements. See paragraph 24. 

b. Provide support on quality and reliability issues to the Contracting Officer and other 

Government activities, e.g., DCMC, throughout the postaward contracting process. This 

includes: 

(1) Providing recommendations for, or waivers of, postaward 

orientation conferences, based on contractor quality history. See 

paragraph 25. 

(2) Issuing QALIs designating specific inspections, verification, or 

tests, to be conducted by the CAO, or the receiving depot. In addition, 

providing the CAO/Depot with quality history for the product, service, 

or contractor, when appropriate. See paragraph 26. 

(3) Participating in First Article testing or production tests at contractor 

plants, as required/as requested by the CAO. Evaluating and 

recommending approval or disapproval of test reports. See paragraph 

12. 
(4) Arranging for Government or commercial laboratory testing, as 

necessary, through the Product Verification Manager. See paragraph 

13. 

(5) Evaluating contractor requests for changes to, or waiver of, contract 

requirements. See paragraph 4. 

(6) Evaluating contractor requests for product deviations and product 

waivers, and recommending approval or disapproval of the request. 

When the request affects requirements established by an ESA, SPA, or 

technical activity, approval will not be recommended without 

coordination. See paragraph 27. 

(7) Performing QSMVs to inspection activities, depots, supply points, 

prepositioned war reserve sites, laboratories, customer installations, and 

contractor facilities. See paragraph 31. 

(8) Participating in QSRs as warranted by quality history and/or other 

circumstances. See paragraph 31. 

(9) Investigating, resolving, and responding in a timely and adequate 

manner to Customer Depot Complaints (CDCs) which report 

product/packaging quality deficiencies. See paragraph 28. 

(10) Providing commodity oriented training to DCMC, DD, and ICP 

personnel, and other activities, as required. 

(11) Investigating and replying to adverse quality and reliability 

allegations. See paragraph 32. 

(12) Performing Quality Assurance actions and investigations of 

Counterfeit Materiel and Unauthorized Product Substitutions 

(CM/UPS) cases referred by the CM/UPS Committee. See paragraph 

33. 

(13) Evaluating Contract Data Package Recommendation/Deficiency 

Reports (DD Forms 1716). See paragraph 34. 

(14) Appearing as Government witness at trials and giving depositions, 

as required. 

(15) Arranging for special Quality Audit inspection of materiel at DDs 

and supply points. Audits will be arranged through the ICP Product 

Verification Managers. See paragraph 37. 

(16) Collecting and maintaining quality history. Providing contractor 

quality performance history to the Contracting Officer and other 

Government personnel to aid in their postaward decisions, e.g., 

recommended terminations, waiver requests, and 

suspension/debarment. See paragraph 41. 

24. CONTRACT REVIEW. To assure that appropriate QAPs have been incorporated into 

the contracts and to prepare for postaward QA actions, it is essential that the Quality 

Assurance personnel review the actual contracting documents. Because the quality 

requirements are put in solicitations before award, there is no way to know which 

contractor actually received the award in order to take necessary QA actions. As a 
minimum, personnel assigned responsibility for quality should review all ICP contracts, 

and contract modifications, designating performance of Government CQA actions at 

source. Contracts, and contract modifications, designating CQA at destination should be 

reviewed when adverse quality history has been experienced or if quality problems are 

anticipated. The following procedures apply: 

a. Assure that contracts and contract modifications (for their assigned items) that have 

CQA at source, are provided for review. 

b. Determine which contracts and contract modifications (for assigned items) that have 

CQA at destination, should be provided for review. 

(1) During routine preaward actions (i.e., review of acquisition plans, 

determination of QAPs, Preaward Surveys) an indication may be given 

that quality problems may occur. At this time, the person performing 

QA functions should take action to assure that future contracts will be 

provided for their review. 

(2) During routine postaward actions (i.e., PQDR investigation, First 

Article review, Waiver/Deviation review, QSMVs) an indication may 

be given that problems are being experienced with items or contractors. 

At this time, action should be taken to assure that future contracts will 

be provided for review. 

c. Review contracts and contract modifications as follows: 

(1) Check the contract to assure that the QAPs and contract quality 

requirements originally requested were placed in the contract 

documents. Check the contract modifications for any changes in 

requested quality requirements. 

(2) Check the contractor history to assure that there is no adverse 

history that would affect the performance of the contract. This is 

needed at the point of contract review because contract review is the 

first time that the contractor is known to the person that recommended 

the contract requirements. 

(3) If there are changes to what was requested, or changes are required 

based upon review of quality history, the Contracting Officer should be 

informed. Possible corrective actions that the Contracting Officer may 

wish to make may be issuance of a modification or even termination of 

the contract. If suggested/requested changes are not made, the request 

should be documented and consideration should be given to performing 

additional quality assurance surveillance actions or performance 

verification. 

d. Perform or prepare for postaward actions based on the review of the contract, and the 

quality history of the contractor, as follows: 

(1) Determine the need for a postaward conference. 

(2) Determine the need for a QALI. 

(3) Initiate arrangements for First Article and other tests. 

(4) Determine the need for a QSMV. 
(5) Determine need for special audits and initiate actions. 

(6) Input the contract's quality data into the quality history system 

(QEP, if available). 

25. POSTAWARD ORIENTATION CONFERENCE. Postaward conferences are 

conducted by the Government to fully familiarize the contractor with the terms and 

conditions of the contract and clarify any misunderstandings. Personnel performing 

quality functions will: 

a. Request a postaward conference when past quality history and/or previous contractor 

experience on an item has shown quality problems. When recommending a postaward 

conference for QA reasons, provide the Contracting Officer with pertinent data to support 

the need for such conference and the specific requirements necessary to assure a 

comprehensive conference in the QA area. 

b. Participate in postaward conferences, when appropriate (i.e., requested by the 

Contracting Officer or when specific knowledge or expertise is available only from the 

ICP) providing background, quality performance data, and QA assistance to contractors 

and in-plant QARs. 

(1) Prior to participation in a postaward conference, review the 

following areas: 

(a) Preaward Survey Findings. 

(b) Previous postaward conferences. 

(c) Critical nature and technical complexity of supplies and services from a QA 

viewpoint. 

(d) Quality history of the contractor and/or item 

(e) Status of contractor (new, current, personnel changes) 

(f) Special provisions of the contract (in-process inspection, test verification procedures, 

Government approval of first articles and control of Government furnished materials). 

(2) If review of (1) indicates any ambiguous or inadequate technical 

requirements/QA requirements, resolution should be obtained prior to 

postaward conference. 

(3) Actions to resolve any deficiencies may include requests to user/ 

ESA/SPA for clarifications, changes or recommended contract 

modifications. 

c. Arrange for the conference. The office that determines the need for a post-award 

conference normally will make the necessary arrangements for the conference. Personnel 

performing quality functions will act as chairpersons of conferences when designated by 

the Contracting Officer. The duties of the chairperson include establishing a time and 

place for the conference, preparing an agenda, notifying the CAO, conducting a 

preliminary meeting of Government personnel, and preparing a summary report of the 

conference. When personnel are designated as chairpersons, they will: 
(1) Prepare an agenda using DD Form 1484, Post-Award Conference 

Record, as a guide to ensure all significant matters are covered. 

(2) Ensure copies of the agenda are distributed to the participants 

sufficiently in advance of the conference to allow them time for 

preparation. 

(3) Schedule a meeting of Government personnel prior to the 

conference and establish the Government's position on the contract to 

avoid any disagreement in the presence of the contractor. 

(4) Supervise preparation of a summary report upon completion of the 

conference and sign the report. Assure quality problems discussed at 

the conference, including those requiring further action and resolution, 

are recorded in the summary report. 

(5) Distribute copies of the summary report to the Contracting Officer, 

the CAO, the QAR, and other participants and activities requiring the 

information. The Contracting Officer shall distribute the report to the 

contractor if determined necessary. 

d. Perform the following functions at postaward conferences: 

(1) Provide background information on the quality aspects of the 

item(s) discussed and include data on past contractor(s) problems 

(without identification of the firm(s) involved). 

(2) Participate in the conference, answering any questions relating to 

the QA aspects of the contract. If a QA question cannot be answered 

during the conference, the Contracting Officer will be informed and 

every effort will be made to provide a response within a reasonable 

time. 

26. QUALITY ASSURANCE LETTERS OF INSTRUCTION (QALIs). QALIs are 

issued to/discussed with the activity responsible for Government CQA actions at source 

or destination for the purpose of assuring the integrity of DLA-procured products and 

services. 

a. QALIs are used for 

(1) Providing for positive in-plant Government inspection of selected 

product or process characteristics by specifying to the CAO the type 

and extent of Government inspections to be performed on a given 

contract for specific supplies or services that are complex or for which 

unusual requirements have been established, or that have been reported 

deficient or nonconforming by receiving, testing, or using activities. 

(2) Providing the CAO with adverse quality history on the item and/or 

contractor so the CAO is aware of known or potential problem areas. 

b. There are two types of QALIs: 

(1) A formal QALI is a letter prepared by personnel performing quality 

functions on the ICP's letterhead stationery and signed within that 

persons organization. This letter is provided to the CAO/inspection 

points to provide information and to request mandatory inspections. 

Mandatory inspections shall only be requested with a formal QALI. 
Data considered appropriate for a QALI should not be incorporated in 

an award instrument or contract. 

(2) An Informal QALI is any communication (by telephone, fax, 

informal notes, or meetings with CAO/inspection point personnel. It is 

essential that summary information of both informal and formal QALIs 

be entered into the QEP to assure that a record is kept of the 

requirements or information provided. 

c. In keeping with DoD policy, CAOs are required to: 

(1) Perform inspections imposed by QALIs. 

(2) Review QALIs and, when appropriate, make recommendations to 

the Contracting Officer for their improvement. 

(3) Continue performing QALI-imposed inspections until 

recommendations have been acted upon. The Contracting Officer is 

obligated to take appropriate action on such recommendations. The 

type and extent of inspections specified in a QALI should not be 

considered as static, but rather subject to changes throughout the life of 

the contract based on quality history such as postaward conferences, 

Government in-plant inspection results, QSMVs, QSRs, user feedback, 

waivers, and other related data. 

d. Periodically, special inspections at depots may require the issuance of QALIs. Such 

letters should be used to the extent necessary to achieve the same objectives at depots as 

at contractor facilities. 

e. Personnel performing quality functions must make a determination whether a QALI is 

needed for a specific contract. they should base their decisions on the following factors: 

(1) Criticality of the product in relation to its intended use, considering 

such factors as reliability, safety, and interchangeability. 

(2) Contractor performance and past experience with the same or 

similar items indicates a need for special attention. Future contractor 

performance may be indicated when a contract award is made to a 

contractor irrespective of a negative preaward survey. 

(3) Problems that have been encountered in the acquisition of the same 

or similar items. 

(4) Feedback data from receiving, testing, and using activities. 

(5) The contract concerns a new contractor or item for which there is no 

quality history. 

(6) The technical activity request for a flow down to the CAO of 

mandatory inspections (e.g., MIs on IRPOD items). A QALI shall be 

used to accomplish this in all cases. 

(7) A determination is made to specifically withhold CAO authority for 

acceptance of minor nonconformances of material. 

(8) The CAO's use of CoC needs to be restricted when a competitive 

procurement is awarded to a contractor whose reputation or 
performance does not provide assurance that defective supplies would 

be replaced without contest. 

(9) There is a need to call a postaward conference. 

(10) There is need for ICP personnel to participate in First Article or 

similar testing, or provide technical assistance. 

(11) A change has been made in the Quality Assurance Provisions since 

the item was last procured. This can include adding CoQC, 

Manufacturing Process Control clause, or the Statistical Process 

Control QAP. 

f. Restrictions for use. QALIs shall be issued on a contract-by-contract basis only and 

shall not be prepared covering the following conditions or containing the following types 

of information without prior approval of HQ DLA, DLSC-LEQ: 

(1) As a substitute for incomplete contract quality requirements. 

(2) Where the contract does not impose equal or greater inspection 

requirements on the contractor. 

(3) Encompassing broad or general designations such as "all 

requirements," "all characteristics," or "all characteristics in the 

classification of defects." 

(4) On routine administrative procedures. 

(5) Specifying continued inspection requirements when statistically 

sound sampling will provide an adequate degree of protection. 

(6) On a commodity or FSC basis. 

g. Preparation of QALIs. Guidance as to the type of information considered appropriate 

for inclusion in a QALI is provided below. 

(1) Contract Identification. Identify the contract number; name and 

address of contractor (include name and address of place of 

manufacturer if different from the prime contractor); item(s) being 

procured and applicable specification/drawing/part number. 

(2) ICP QA Point of Contact. Identify the individual assigned to the 

specific contract to include his/her organization, telephone number, fax 

number, and e-mail address. 

(3) Postaward QA Conference. Include in the QALI only if it is 

determined that such a conference is essential and beneficial with 

respect to a detailed review of the contractual QA/ technical 

requirements. 

(4) Inspection Instructions. Describe in precise terms the type and 

extent of the inspections (specific product/process characteristics) the 

CAO is required to verify. Characteristics must be clearly listed and 

referenced to their respective technical source document such as the 

specification or drawing. "Type of inspection refers to examination 

(visual/dimensional) and testing of end items as well as in-process and 

may apply to First Articles, Production Lots and production quantities." 

"Extent" should be phrased to clearly define the degree and frequency 
of the Government inspection required, e.g., verifying that the listed 

characteristics conform to technical requirements on "each of the first 

50 production quantity items;" "using the contractual sampling plan, 

sample each lot submitted by the contractor for Government acceptance 

and verify that paragraph x.x.x of Specification XX complies with 

contractual requirements;" other similar instructions. Efforts must be 

made to avoid usage of general terms, such as all characteristics and 

total requirements. Extreme care must be taken in identifying these 

mandatory inspections, as excessive or nonessential inspection 

requirements directed by the Purchasing Office impose a heavy burden 

on the CAO. The QALI should not include requirements for 

Government inspection unless the contract imposes similar 

requirements on the contractor. If such a condition is surfaced, action 

should be taken to modify the contract. Further, where the 

specifications require the Government QAR to perform certain 

identified inspections, these requirements should not be repeated in the 

QALIs. 

(5) Nonconforming Materiel and Services. Specify the CAO authority 

for accepting nonconforming materiel. The CAO has the authority to 

accept nonconforming materiel having minor departures unless the 

Contracting Officer specifically withholds such authority. Minor 

departures are defined as those which do not involve health, safety, 

performance, durability, reliability, interchangeability, effective use, 

operation, weight, or appearance (where a factor). If it is determined 

that acceptance authority for minor departures should be withheld, the 

QALI must indicate this requirement and include instructions as to 

procedures the CAO is to follow in processing contractor requests to 

the PCO for consideration. 

(6) Contractor/Item Quality History. Provide pertinent, factual, and 

objective information about product problems experienced, possible 

trouble areas, and contractor past performance, where performance may 

adversely affect the quality of supplies and services being contracted. 

There may be instances where the QAR may not be thoroughly familiar 

with the item under contract; therefore, it is of major benefit to the ICP 

to impart the experience that has already been gained with the same or 

similar items. This type of information should be most helpful in 

assisting the CAO plan and implement in-plant CQA actions taking 

into account known or potential problem areas. 

(7) CAO QA Inspection Records. Product verification records shall not 

be requested indiscriminately; but where such records are required, 

forms in use by the CAO's QARs shall be used to satisfy this 

requirement. 

(8) Product-Oriented or Specialized Training and Experience. Specify 

training or assistance available/required. When it is determined that 

specialized product-oriented experience and/or training is required to 

accomplish the job and protect the interests of DLA in obtaining a 

quality product, details concerning the types of product-oriented 

training and experience and why it is considered essential should be 

included in the QALI. DLA personnel may offer technical assistance 

and request the CAO provide notification of when specific 

tests/examinations will take place so on-site participation by ICP 

personnel can be arranged. 
(9) Acknowledgment of QALI. Self-explanatory. 

h. Approval and Distribution of QALIs. After the completed QALI is signed, two copies 

of the approved QALI will be forwarded to the cognizant CAO or provided to the 

Contracting Officer for attachment to the CAO's copies of the contract during contract 

distribution. 

i. Post QALI Actions. After issuance of the QALI, pertinent feedback data, i.e., test 

results, QSMVs, and user experience, should be analyzed to determine if conditions 

warrant a change in the type and extent of inspection imposed on the CAO. Such an 

adjustment may be upward or downward. It is DLA policy to be responsive to CAO 

requests for reduction of inspection requirements contained in the QALI, provided 

sufficient data and justification are furnished to substantiate the requested reduction. All 

requests will be answered and if a request is denied, the reasons will be included in the 

reply. Telephone inquiries to the ICP's QA point of contact for a specific QALI should be 

answered promptly as the effectiveness of the QALI is keyed to a full understanding of it 

by the CAO. 

27. DEVIATIONS AND WAIVERS - NONCONFORMING MATERIEL. QA personnel 

must evaluate and make recommendations to the Contracting Officer on requests for 

Deviations and Waivers of nonconforming materiel. 

a. The following definitions apply: 

(1) Requests for Deviations are written requests from the contractor, 

after contract award and prior to manufacture of an item, to depart from 

a particular performance, or other design requirement, of a contract 

specification or referenced document. The request for the deviation 

must specify the number of units or specific period of time. The written 

authorization from the Contracting Officer to the contractor is the 

Deviation. 

(2) Requests for Waivers are written requests from the contractor, after 

contract award and during/after production of the item, for specific 

items that have been determined to depart from a particular 

performance or other design requirement of a contract specification or 

referenced document. The written authorization from the Contracting 

Officer, accepting the departure, is the Waiver. 

(3) Nonconforming materiel is any item, part, product, or packaging of 

product, with one or more characteristics which depart from the 

specification, drawing, or product description requirements of the 

contract. 

b. Requests for Waivers/Deviations discussed in this section are for product 

performance/characteristic nonconformances. The evaluation of "Product" 

Waiver/Deviation Requests is different from the evaluation of "Contract" 

Waiver/Deviation Requests. Contract Waiver/Deviation Requests refer to requests for 

contract clause changes (i.e., removal of First Article requirement, Higher-level contract 

requirements, testing requirements). Procedures for evaluation of contract waiver 

requests are provided in paragraph 18. 

c. It is DLA policy to accept only that materiel which fully conforms in all respects to the 

contract requirements. The offer of nonconforming material to the Government for 

acceptance should be the exception, and contractors should be discouraged from 

submitting Requests for Deviations and Requests for Waiver. 
d. When evaluation of the criteria depicted in a specification indicates a change is 

required or beneficial to the Government, action should be taken to change the criteria, 

not waive them. Caution must be exercised to ensure the criteria are not degraded in favor 

of resolving contractor problems with meeting schedules or contractor inability to meet 

valid criteria. 

e. The contractor prepares Requests for Waivers/ Deviations, in accordance with 

contractual requirements, and forwards them through the ACO (who adds comments and 

recommendations on DD Form 1998, Comments on Waivers, Deviations, or Engineering 

Change Request) to the PCO. The Contracting Officer refers requests for product 

Waivers/Deviations to the person performing QA functions at the ICP for evaluation and 

recommendations. 

f. The authority for disapproval of requests is as follows: 

(1) The Contracting Officer has the authority to reject the 

Waiver/Deviation request upon receipt of the request or after obtaining 

recommendations from functional personnel (i.e., Quality Assurance, 

Technical, Supply) or the Military Services (i.e., ESA, SPA, or 

technical activity). 

(2) Personnel performing quality functions may recommend rejection 

of Waiver/Deviation requests upon receipt (without need for 

forwarding the request to any other person for review). They may also 

recommend rejection after reviewing approval recommendations 

submitted by other functional elements; however, the Contracting 

Officer will be responsible for the final determination when conflicting 

recommendations are involved. 

g. The authority for approval of requests is as follows: 

(1) Authority to accept minor nonconformances of materiel is delegated 

by the PCO to the CAO, except when authority for such acceptance is 

specifically withheld by the PCO. The PCO makes a determination to 

approve Waiver/Deviation requests, upon receipt of the request or after 

obtaining recommendations from functional personnel, but all 

Contracting Officer's approval determinations, for minor 

nonconformances, must be submitted to higher authority at the ICP for 

approval. 

(2) For materiel having major nonconformances, the determination as 

to suitability for use "as is," or with repair, is the responsibility of the 

technical activity responsible for technical requirements. Each 

Contracting Officer's approval determination, for a major 

nonconformance, must be submitted to higher authority for approval. 

h. Personnel performing quality functions will: 

(1) Receive product Waiver/Deviation Requests from the PCO. If the 

request does not contain comments/recommendations from the CAO, 

the PCO will be so informed. Contractor requests will be controlled and 

processed expeditiously to avoid production delays and possible claims 

against the Government. 

(2) Perform an initial evaluation of the request. The initial evaluation 

will, as a minimum, consider the following factors: 
(a) Classification of nonconformance (major or minor). (The determination to accept a 

major nonconformance must be made by the activity responsible for technical 

requirements and will be forwarded to the ICP's technical element for evaluation and 

submission to the appropriate activity.) 

(b) Comments and recommendations of a quality/technical nature made by the CAO or 

other activity providing inspection services. 

(c) The effect of the nonconformance/deviation on performance, durability, reliability, 

interchangeability, maintainability, effective use or operation, weight or appearance 

(where a factor), and health or safety. 

(d) The practicability and cost of rework or repair. 

(e) Previous request(s) for Waiver(s)/Deviation(s) from the same contractor. 

(f) Previous request(s) of the same nonconforming characteristics/deviations from the 

same contractor and/or other contractors. 

(g) Criticality of application, quality history of the item/contractor, commercial nature of 

the item, unit cost of the item, and similar criteria. 

(h) Concurrent requests for minor nonconformances from same contractor. Evaluation is 

necessary to determine if the cumulative effect is a major nonconformance. 

(3) Forward a written recommendation to the PCO, supported by 

justification, to disapprove the Waiver/Deviation Request if the initial 

evaluation indicates that the request should be disapproved. A 

recommendation to disapprove should be provided when the 

Waiver/Deviation is repetitive, the request is not fully justified, or it is 

determined that approval is not in the best interest of the Government. 

(4) If the initial evaluation indicates approval may be warranted, the 

request will be forwarded to the responsible technical personnel for 

evaluation/submission to the Military Service/Agency responsible for 

technical requirements (i.e., the ESA, SPA). 

(5) Forward requests for input/assistance to other functional personnel 

at the ICP, if the determination cannot be made without assistance. 

(6) Upon receipt of input from the ICP person/activity responsible for 

technical requirements, perform a thorough analysis of the input. 

Acceptance recommendations should be limited, and provided only in 

those cases where the evaluation fully justifies the recommendation and 

it has been determined to be in the best interest of the Government. 

Repetitive waivers should not be accepted. 

(7) Upon completion of the evaluation: 

(a) Provide a written recommendation to the PCO. A comprehensive technical evaluation 

and economic analysis, as required, will support this recommendation. Conflicting 

recommendations from other functional personnel should be included for the PCO's final 
determination. For Requests concerning major nonconformances, include the 

concurrence/nonconcurrence of the technical activity. 

(b) Notify the PCO in writing when repetitive requests have been referred for evaluation 

so the PCO can consider this as a factor when making determinations of a prospective 

contractor's responsibility. 

(c) Assure coordination with ESAs/SPAs through appropriate channels when evaluated 

Waivers/Deviations indicate a specification/drawing change is required or beneficial to 

the Government. Treat repetitive requests from different manufacturers as evidence of the 

need for specification revision. 

(d) Assure action is initiated as necessary to update the CTDF to prevent recurrence of 

the same request for a Waiver/Deviation. 

(e) Provide information as necessary to appropriate ICP personnel who maintain the 

Waiver/Deviation register. Per the Waiver/Deviation Status Report (RCS 

DLA(Q)2428(E-AQ)), each DLA ICP shall collect Waiver/Deviation data for each 

Waiver/Deviation that is processed. This data focuses continued emphasis on repeat 

requests for, and repeat approvals of, Waivers and Deviations for nonconforming 

supplies and the need for Military Services to change Technical Data Package 

requirements based on these repeat Waivers/Deviations. The data to be collected, and the 

format for reporting, are identified in the Waivers and Deviations System Users Manual. 

(f) Update appropriate quality history files and use Waiver/Deviation history as a basis 

for determining the need to issue a QALI on current, pending, or future contracts. 

WAIVER/DEVIATION (W/D) PROCESSING 

 

 +-------------------------------+ 

 | Contractor initiates | 

 | request for W/D to CAO | 

 +-------------------------------+ 

 | 

 +---------------------------------------+ 

 | CAO reviews, provides DD Form 1998 | 

 | with recommendation to PCO | 

 +---------------------------------------+ 

 | 

 Disapproval +---------------------------------------+ 

 +---------------| PCO reviews request | 

 | +---------------------------------------+ 

 | | 

 | +---------------------------------------+ 

 | | PCO forwards to QA Person to evaluate | 

 \|/ +---------------------------------------+ 

 | | 

 | +-----------------------------------------

+ 

 | | QA person determines classification and 

| 

 | | performs initial evaluation of W/D 

| 
 | +-----------------------------------------

+ 

 | | | 

 | +-------------------------+ +---------------------

------+ 

 | | QA Person recommends | | QA person 

determine | 

 | | disapproval to PCO | | approval may be 

indicated | 

 | +-------------------------+ | and obtains input 

from | 

 | | | other functional 

people | 

 | | | QA person sends 

W/D | 

 | | | to technical 

person | 

 | | +---------------------

------+ 

 | | | 

 \|/ \|/ +---------------------

------+ 

 | | | QA person evaluates 

input,| 

 | | | provides 

recommendation | 

 | | +---------------------

------+ 

 | | | 

 | +-----------------------------------+ 

 | | PCO evaluates recommendations | 

 | +-----------------------------------+ 

 | | | 

 | \|/ +---------------------

------+ 

 | Disapproval | | PCO makes accept 

decision | 

 +----------------------------+-----+---------------------

------+ 

 \|/ | 

 | +-----------------------------------------------------

------+ 

 | | MINOR | | MAJOR 

| 

 | | PCO submits decision to | | PCO submits decision 

to | 

 | | ICP Contracting | | Chief of Contracting 

Office | 

 | | Division Chief | | for approval 

| 

 | | for approval | | 

| 

 | +-------------------------+ +-----------------------

------+ 

 | | | 

 | +----------------------------------+ 

 \|/ | W/D is approved/disapproved | 
 | +----------------------------------+ 

 | | 

 | +--------------------------------------+ 

 +---------------| PCO informs ACO, QAR, and contractor | 

 | END | 

 +--------------------------------------+ 

 

 

 

 Figure 27-1 

 

28. Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs) and other Customer Depot Complaints 

a. Complaints of product/packaging quality deficiencies are sent to the ICP Focal Point, 

which will: 

(1) Provide a single face to customers/depots for receipt and system 

entry of PQDRs and CDCs. See paragraph 30 for CDCS procedures. 

(2) Distribute PQDRs and CDCs to appropriate ICP person for 

resolution and response. 

(a) Product/Packaging quality CDCs should be assigned to the person assigned to 

perform quality functions on the item. 

(b) The remaining CDCs will be distributed to other ICP personnel for action 

commensurate with the type of deficiency reported. b. The following procedures apply 

specifically to PQDRs. The same logic will be used for investigation and resolution of 

other types of CDCs that involve product/packaging quality, such as Supply Discrepancy 

Reports (SDRs) (formerly known as Reports of Discrepancies (RODs), FMS RODs 

reporting quality defects, and Storage Quality Control Reports (DD Form 1225). 

(1) Redirect complaints that are the responsibility of another activity or 

ICP functional element. Advise the screening point, and ICP focal 

point, as appropriate. Complaints submitted on the wrong form will not 

be returned to the screening point but will be worked as if it arrived in 

the right format. 

(2) Determine if the item was procured under a Military Service 

Contract (sometimes referred to as "local" procurement). If the date of 

the Military Service Contract is after the date that item management 

was transferred to DLA, the PQDR shall be determined to be invalid 

and returned to the screening point. If the Military Service contract date 

precedes the item transfer date, the PQDR should be resolved using all 

available means. 

(3) Validate the PQDR categorization. 

(a) An initial review of the discrepancy should be made to verify that the PQDR has been 

accurately categorized by the screening point in accordance with DLAD 4155.24 criteria. 

If there is reason to believe that a Category I designation is not appropriate, the Military 

Service screening point shall be contacted for authorization to change the Category I 

designation. In no case will Category I PQDRs be downgraded to Category II without 

authorization from the screening point. 
(b) Categorize PQDRs not categorized by the Military Service/Agency screening point. 

When appropriate, request assistance of the reporting activity in assigning a category. 

PQDRs involving applications that may cause death, injury, severe occupational illness, 

loss or major damage to a weapon system, critically restricts combat readiness, or would 

result in a production line stoppage should be placed into Category I status. Category II 

PQDRs that report critical application items, and/or safety conditions, should be handled 

as expeditiously as a Category I PQDR, with immediate consideration of a system freeze 

and alert notifications, and telephone and message communications should be used to the 

maximum practical extent. 

(4) Acknowledge receipt of Category I PQDRs within 24 hours. 

Acknowledge receipt of Category II PQDRs. 

(5) Review the PQDR for completeness. If essential information is 

missing which precludes processing of the complaint, note the 

information needed from the originator/screening activity or perform 

research to gain additional insight into the problem. 

(6) Start the 24-Hour Replacement procedures as follows: Call the 

originator, acknowledging receipt of the PQDR and inquire if credit or 

replacement item, if available, is required. (If the customer specifies 

their desires in the complaint, calling them is unnecessary; however, 

Action Office/QAS should contact customer with information 

pertaining to replacements). If the PQDR is for low-dollar/low 

significance items, or if it does not make sense to call the customer, the 

24-Hour procedure does not apply. 

(a) If credit is desired, initiate local credit procedures and annotate the PQDR CDCS 

record. If partial replacement can only be offered, credit procedures will be followed for 

difference. 

(b) If replacement is desired and assets are available, notify Product Verification Program 

(PVP) office to immediately check stock. If deficiency is one the Depot is capable of 

detecting, they will ask the Depot to check stock. 

(c) If conforming materiel is found: [1] Annotate the CDCS record of PQDR with 

disposition instructions in work center comment page with exact ship-to-address and 

attention line. [2] If requesting return of deficient stock, annotate PQDR notifying 

customer which depot/test site to return stock to and reminding customer to ship back 

under original document number. FAX a copy of PQDR to customer for inclusion with 

shipment so that the depot/test site can receipt in Condition Code K. Follow-up with the 

customer until depot/test site receives deficient stock. [3] Forward the complaint to the 

appropriate requisition processing personnel and charge the CDCS record to that code. 

[4] Requisition processing personnel will input an exception Material Release Order 

(MRO), using Priority Code 01 and Project Code "QDR". If the requisition number is in 

the Active Requisition Control and Status File (ARCSF), they will use an assigned SCO 

number. Signal Code "M" will be input and the requisitioner's ship-to DODAAC will be 

provided in the supplementary address. If the requisition number is not in the ARCSF, the 

original requisition number will be used to initiate the replacement shipment. Signal 

Code "D" will be used if shipment is to go to the requisitioner, while Signal Code "M" is 
used if the shipment is to go to the supplementary address. In all cases, the Directed 

Action Code "7" will be used in card column 77 which allows the requisition to process 

as a free issue. Requisition processing personnel will FAX a message/form letter and a 

copy of the PQDR CDCS record to the depot with shipping instructions with the 

appropriate document number. After actions are completed, requisition processing 

personnel will charge the PQDR back to the Action Office for further review/action. [5] 

Depot personnel will ship MRO, using assigned document number and specific address 

and POC provided by Action Office. Copy of the PQDR CDCS record will be included in 

each shipment and depot personnel will provide all appropriate shipping confirmation 

data to SAMMS. 

(d) If the materiel is found nonconforming by the Depot: [1] Depot personnel will notify 

PVP office. [2] The PVP office will notify the Action Office. [3] Normal suspension 

procedures will be followed. [4] The Action Office will notify the customer and initiate 

credit. 

(e) If the deficiency is one which cannot be detected by depot personnel, the PVP office 

will initiate redistribution of either samples or entire PQDR replacement quantity to 

appropriate test lab. [1] Lab personnel will notify PVP office of test results. [2] The PVP 

office will notify the Action office. 

(f) If the test lab finds the assets conforming and if enough assets are at test lab: [1] 

Annotate the CDCS record of PQDR with disposition instructions in work center 

comment page with exact ship-to-address and attention line. [2] If requesting return of 

deficient stock, annotate PQDR notifying customer which depot/test site to return stock 

to and reminding customer to ship back under original document number. FAX a copy of 

PQDR to customer for inclusion with shipment so that the depot/test site can receipt in 

Condition Code K. Follow-up with the customer until depot/test site receives deficient 

stock. [3] Forward the complaint to the appropriate requisition processing personnel and 

charge the CDCS record to that code. [4] Requisition processing personnel will input an 

exception Material Release Order (MRO), using Priority Code 01 and Project Code 

"QDR". If the requisition number is in the Active Requisition Control and Status File 

(ARCSF), they will use an assigned SCO number. Signal Code "M" will be input and the 

requisitioner's ship-to DODAAC will be provided in the supplementary address. If the 

requisition number is not in the ARCSF, the original requisition number will be used to 

initiate the replacement shipment. Signal Code "D" will be used if shipment is to go to 

the requisitioner, while Signal Code "M" is used if the shipment is to go to the 

supplementary address. In all cases, the Directed Action Code "7" will be used in card 

column 77 which allows the requisition to process as a free issue. Requisition processing 

personnel will FAX a message/form letter and a copy of the PQDR CDCS record to the 

test lab with shipping instructions with the appropriate document number. After actions 

are completed, requisition processing personnel will charge the PQDR back to the Action 

Office for further review/action. [5] Test Lab personnel will ship MRO, using assigned 

document number and specific address and POC provided by Action Office. Copy of the 

PQDR CDCS record will be included in each shipment and lab personnel will provide all 

appropriate shipping confirmation data to SAMMS. 
(g) If not enough conforming assets are at test lab: [1] To satisfy total quantity, Action 

office will determine shipping location (Depot and Test Lab, or Depot only) [2] Annotate 

the CDCS record of PQDR with disposition instructions in work center comment page 

with exact ship-to-address and attention line. [3] If requesting return of deficient stock, 

annotate PQDR notifying customer which depot/test site to return stock to and reminding 

customer to ship back under original document number. FAX a copy of PQDR to 

customer for inclusion with shipment so that the depot/test site can receipt in Condition 

Code K. Follow-up with the customer until depot/test site receives deficient stock. [4] 

Forward the complaint to the appropriate requisition processing personnel and charge the 

CDCS record to that code. [5] Requisition processing personnel will input an exception 

Material Release Order (MRO), using Priority Code 01 and Project Code "QDR". If the 

requisition number is in the Active Requisition Control and Status File (ARCSF), they 

will use an assigned SCO number. Signal Code "M" will be input and the requisitioner's 

ship-to DODAAC will be provided in the supplementary address. If the requisition 

number is not in the ARCSF, the original requisition number will be used to initiate the 

replacement shipment. Signal Code "D" will be used if shipment is to go to the 

requisitioner, while Signal Code "M" is used if the shipment is to go to the supplementary 

address. In all cases, the Directed Action Code "7" will be used in card column 77 which 

allows the requisition to process as a free issue. Requisition processing personnel will 

FAX a message/form letter and a copy of the PQDR CDCS record to the depot/lab with 

shipping instructions with the appropriate document number. After actions are completed, 

requisition processing personnel will charge the PQDR back to the Action Office for 

further review/action. [6] Depot/Test Lab personnel will ship MRO, using assigned 

document number and specific address and POC provided by Action Office. Copy of the 

PQDR CDCS record will be included in each shipment and lab personnel will provide all 

appropriate shipping confirmation data to SAMMS. 

(h) If assets are found to be nonconforming at the test site: [1] Test site personnel will 

notify PVP office. [2] The PVP office will notify the Action Office. [3] The Action 

Office will notify lab personnel with disposition, either transfer materiel to Condition 

Code H (DAC) or suspend materiel for further review. [4] The Action Office will notify 

the customer and initiate credit. 

(i) If Action Office ultimately determines that the PQDR was invalid and a replacement 

item has been shipped, the action office will advise the customer and ascertain if the 

customer wants to return the original parts or be billed. DFAS personnel must be notified 

to perform billing action or establish a due-in. 

(7) Establish an appropriate suspense for responding to complaints. 

Suspenses for PQDRs will be established in accordance with 

DLAD/DLAI 4155.24. Suspenses for responding to a DD 1225 is as 

specified in DLAM 4140.2, Vol. III, Part I, ch 70. Suspense dates for 

complaints other than DD 1225s, Storage Quality Control Reports, and 

PQDRs will be as specified in applicable regulations. Establish an 

effective system to ensure that suspense dates are met. If the suspense 

date cannot be met, assure that interim replies, including subsequent 

interim replies, are sent prior to the expiration of the established 

suspense date. 
(a) For CATEGORY I PQDRs, an interim or final reply will be sent to the component 

screening point within 20 calendar days after the date the PQDR was received from the 

screening point/originator. If an interim reply (including subsequent interim replies) is 

sent, include status to date and a projected final reply date. 

(b) For CATEGORY II PQDRs, an interim or final reply will be sent to the component 

screening point within 30 calendar days (investigations not requiring exhibits) after the 

date the PQDR was originally received from the screening point/originator. If an interim 

reply (including subsequent interim replies) is sent, status to date and a projected date for 

the final reply will be given. 

(8) Review PQDR files (CDCS) and determine if the same deficiency is 

currently under investigation or has been investigated and resolved 

recently. 

(a) If there is an ongoing investigation, a separate investigation should not be initiated; 

any new information contained in the PQDR will be used to ensure that the deficiency is 

properly resolved. 

(b) If the same deficiency has been investigated and resolved, a new investigation should 

only be initiated if there is reason to suspect that the case needs reconsideration. 

Otherwise, the previous investigation results may be used to reply to the screening point. 

(c) If a support point was involved, send them an information copy of the PQDR. 

(d) Send an information copy of the PQDR to the contractor if the CDCS cause code is 

CN. 

(9) Determine if you need to conduct an investigation. The item 

complexity, cost, contract quantity, number of nonconforming items, 

and frequency of occurrence (e.g., isolated instance) should be used as 

evaluation criteria. Category I PQDRs and Category II PQDRs that 

report critical or major defects must always be investigated. 

Considerations are: 

(a) Severity of Defect: When the defect is very minor in nature (for example, a scratch) 

that doesn't affect form, fit, or function, and the benefit of correction is small, close out 

per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure below. 

(b) Criticality of item: When the item is insignificant (for example, a common/simple 

item that is not used in any critical or weapon systems) and you determine that it is not 

wide-spread (not many items are affected), close out per the "simplified or noinvestigation" procedure below. 

(c) Isolated instance: When the complaint is one that is a sole occurrence, unsupported by 

the existence of any additional quality defects, close out per the "simplified or noinvestigation" procedure below. 

(d) Information only: When the complaint originator indicates that they sent the 

complaint "for information only" and you determine that the originator only wants credit 
and/or disposition instructions, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation" 

procedure below. 

(e) Insufficient information: When you don't have vital information (For example, it is a 

code and part number buy, or you know you don't have a contract number) to allow you 

to sufficiently investigate, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure 

below. 

(f) Cost-factors: When there is insignificant or low-dollar values that do not merit an 

investigation or action, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure 

below. 

(g) Other reasons: When an investigation would provide minimal information, and the 

supervisor concurs, close out per the "simplified or no-investigation" procedure below. 

(10) Simplified or No-Investigation Procedure: If any of the above in 

paragraph (8) apply, and there are no opposing considerations, do the 

following: 

(a) Send a closing response to the screening point with the disposition of the item. 

(b) Send a copy of the complaint to the support point (DCMC OFFICES) as "information 

only" if the item was source-inspected. 

(c) Send a copy of the complaint to the contractor when the CDCS cause code is CN. 

(d) Close the complaint in CDCS with a cause code of "SI" (Simplified Investigation); 

put an explanation in the CDCS cause narrative, the final reply, and the PQDR history 

file, of why you did not investigate or take action. NOTE: DO NOT USE THE CAUSE 

CODE OF CN UNLESS YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT THE CONTRACTOR 

CAUSED THE DEFECT. 

(11) Perform Investigations of PQDRs as follows: 

(a) Determine if you need to review the contract and item/ contractor history. If you are 

confident that you know the contract requirements and history of the item/contractor 

sufficiently, you can by-pass the history review. If not, review the contract in question 

(including any modifications) for warranty, technical and QA requirements, place of 

inspection/acceptance activity, first article testing, and required delivery dates; review the 

complaint history, item history, and contractor history. QA personnel should use all 

available supporting Automated Information Systems (AIS) to accomplish the 

investigations, including SAMMS, CDCS, QEP, Lab Test data or available Services' 

deficiency data base. 

(b) Determine if you need to review technical data. If you know that the defect is valid, 

based upon your knowledge of the item, you can by-pass the technical data review. If not, 

review technical data and any reports of examination, testing, or laboratory analysis of 

the item. 
(c) Determine if you need to check stock status. If you know there are not significant 

numbers of items in stock that have this defect, you can by-pass the stock status review. 

If not, check stock availability, status and locations. Initiate a systems freeze through the 

Item Manager on all Category I PQDRs. 

(d) Request stock screening action, for on-hand and due-in assets as appropriate, at DLA 

and Military Service Storage locations to separate conforming and nonconforming items. 

(See segregation and screening guidance in paragraph (13) (b) below). Request 

suspension of nonconforming materiel. 

(e) Determine if you need to request the Product Verification Office (PVP) to perform 

testing or special inspection. If you can determine the scope of the defect (all items 

produced/only a specific contract/only this isolated item) you can by-pass the special 

inspection. Testing and inspection are valuable tools in validating complaints and 

determining the degree of noncompliance and cause of defects. Therefore, test and 

inspection shall always be considered when the degree, extent, and cause are unknown. 

This is especially true for critical and major defects. When testing or inspection is not 

performed in support of a PQDR investigation, the rationale for this decision shall be 

documented in the final reply and PQDR history file. If a special inspection is needed, 

request it immediately. Comply with guidance in paragraph 34 of this manual for special 

inspections. If the item is already suspended from issue for some other reason, the special 

inspection will still be performed. 

(f) Determine if you need an investigation by Support Points (e.g., DCMC OFFICES, 

CAO, ESA, SPA). [1] If you are confident that the deficiency is valid, and you know the 

cause, you don't have to ask a Support Point for an investigation. You may want to send 

an information copy of the PQDR and the final reply to the DCMC area office. [2] If 

investigation by a support point is needed, send a written request with a copy of the 

PQDR, a statement of the support required, a suspense date for a response, and the 

pertinent background data which may be helpful in the investigation effort. Advance 

requests by phone are encouraged. [3] If you ask the Support Point for an investigation, 

maintain a suspense for the Support Point response. Initiate follow-up actions if an 

interim or final reply is not received within 20 days for a Category I PQDR and 30 days 

for Category II PQDRs (when no exhibit is required). [4] If the CAO support point is 

involved in the investigation, advise them to immediately request an exhibit directly from 

the holding activity. Assist the support point in obtaining exhibits, if necessary. [5] 

Review support point responses for investigation action, correction of defect, and action 

as to cause. 

(g) Determine if you need an exhibit to evaluate the reported deficiency. If the deficiency 

is evident from the description, or there are other reasons why an exhibit is not necessary 

(for example, the contractor never requests an exhibit), release it from the holding 

activity as soon as possible and by-pass the procedure to hold an exhibit. If you might 

need an exhibit in the future, request the originator to hold the exhibit. When you know 

an exhibit is needed, request it immediately (by phone, confirmed in writing) from the 

holding activity. [1] Advise the holding activity to attach Product Quality Deficiency 

Report Exhibit Tags, DD Form 2332, to exhibits. [2] If the deficiency can be evaluated 

by ICP QA personnel, advise the holding activity to send the exhibit to the ICP. [3] If a 
Government or commercial laboratory examination/test is required, make arrangements 

for the test through the Product Verification Program (PVP) office and advise the holding 

activity on where to send the exhibit. 

(h) Determine the need for a QSMV. Visit depot and/or contractor facilities as necessary 

to investigate and resolve the problem. 

(i) Follow-up on delinquent/inadequate requests for exhibits, requests for special 

inspections, and requests for support point investigations. 

(12) Evaluate total investigations results. This includes the results of 

contract review; complaint, item and contractor history review;

technical data package review; stock status review; inspection and test

of exhibit results; special inspection results; QSMV findings; and 

support point investigation results. 

(a) Based on the evaluation, the Action Point person responsible for quality functions will 

determine whether the PQDR is valid or invalid and determine the assignable cause. The 

causes of defects can be the responsibility of the contractor, Government, the materiel 

user, or a combination thereof. When limited information precludes the determination of 

the assignable cause, the Action Point will determine probable cause. Examples of causes 

of defects are as follows: 

[1] Contractor Noncompliance: 

Lack of inspection/tests 

Process controls not IAW requirements 

Personnel/Machines not certified 

Shipped without inspection 

Acceptance on CoC 

Lack of supply/vendor control 

Contractor Noncompliance 

Lack of packaging control 

Substitution of material 

 [2] Government: 

 [a] Design 

Inadequate design 

Modification not depicted 

Old material Cited 

 [b] Contractual - Technical - QA: 

Wrong or missing technical data (revision/drawing) 

Approved deviations not applied to CTDF 

Inadequate or missing QA requirements 

 [c] Depot/Storage Sites: 

Issued wrong item 

Substituted item 

Shipping/Handling 

Inspection of materiel 

 [d] User 

User misuse/abuse 

Use of outdated technical manuals 

Poor maintenance 

 

NOTE: DO NOT USE THE CAUSE CODE OF CN UNLESS YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT THE 

CONTRACTOR CAUSED THE DEFECT. 
 

 

(b) If the PQDR is invalid, prepare and send the final response (see paragraph (16)). The reply need only 

contain findings of the investigation. Advise the item manager to release frozen stock to an issuable status. 

(c) If the PQDR is valid, identify and take corrective action required as to the defect, and 

corrective action as to cause to preclude recurrence. Based on the determined cause, take 

the actions in paragraphs (14) and (15) as determined appropriate. 

(13) Perform Actions to Correct Existing Deficiencies: 

(a) Issue Alert Notification(s), such as safety alerts on critical application items. Alert 

other users and/or all known requisitioners. Advise Military Service Materiel Screening 

Points to issue alert notifications. 

(b) Perform segregation and screening inspection of existing product (through the 

Product Verification Program (PVP) office. If you know there is no stock, or if there is 

low risk of defective items getting out to the user, you can by-pass the stock screening 

action. If there is stock, segregation shall be initiated in a timely manner to prevent the 

issuing of nonconforming materiel. [1] Segregation is the action to separate some 

materiel from the inventory and collect together as a new group, i.e., separation of the 

materiel from a specific contract from other materiel with the same National Stock 

Number (NSN). [2] Segregation of product by NSN/contract shall always be required 

when product is considered to have critical or major defects. [3] Screening inspection is 

the inspection of each item of product for designated characteristics and removal of 

nonconforming items. [4] Quality Assurance personnel shall require a response which 

documents the results of the segregation/screening requests. If a response is not received, 

follow-up action shall be initiated. The response shall be retained in the PQDR history 

file. [5] When the number of nonconforming products, or degree of nonconformance, 

found during a screening inspection indicated that the lot is not acceptable, the lot failure 

information will be transmitted to the contractor and the ICP Contracting Officer shall be 

notified concurrently so that the Contracting Officer can effect actions for materiel 

repair/replacement or recoupment of costs from the contractor. [6] Whenever segregation 

and/or screening inspection is not requested, the rationale for this decision shall be 

documented in the final reply and the PQDR history file. 

(c) Make recommendations to the Contracting Officer on contractual warranty 

enforcement. If it would serve no purpose to enforce the warranty (for example, the 

warranty will expire before you can take actions, small dollar value benefit) you can bypass the warranty enforcement action. [1] Aggressive action shall be taken to obtain 

contractor repair or replacement of nonconforming materiel when it is determined that the 

contractor is responsible. This action is especially important for materiel with critical or 

major defects. Complete research shall be performed to determine if an express or 

implied warranty can be invoked. The following actions shall be taken: [a] If the materiel 

was procured with a contract that contained a warranty clause, this clause shall be 

invoked to obtain recoupment. [b] If there is no explicit warranty clause, but it is known 

that the contractor provides limited or lifetime warranties on their products, this warranty 

shall be used. One example of this is the lifetime warranty provided by the Federal Prison 

Industries (UNICOR) on all items they supply. [c] The Contracting Officer shall be 
apprised of the nonconformance and subsequent Government activity. [2] When no 

warranty remedy can be used, the Action Point person investigating the deficiency shall 

notify the Contracting Officer to request the contractor repair/replace the materiel at no 

cost to the Government or that the Contracting Officer accept monetary consideration. [3] 

If the contractor does not respond favorably to the above request, DLA ICP personnel 

shall consider obtaining recoupment through legal means based upon contract clauses 

that refer to latent defects, fraud, and gross mistakes amounting to fraud. Latent defects 

are considered to be those that exist at the time of acceptance but cannot be discovered by 

a reasonable inspection. They are not patent or observable. [4] All recoupment actions, as 

well as determinations not to seek recoupment, shall be documented in the final reply and 

the PQDR history file. 

(d) Determine what the risks are for non-reclassification of stock. If there is no benefit, 

the user will not receive defective items, and there will be no severe consequences to 

DLA, you can by-pass this action. If there is benefit, recommend reclassification of stock 

into appropriate condition code (i.e., downgrade of Type II shelf life item from condition 

code A to condition code B). 

(e) Determine if a QALI should be issued. If there is limited benefit to this action (for 

example, if the contracted item is near completion and cannot be corrected before a QALI 

is received), you can by-pass this action. If there is benefit, issue a QALI to inspection 

activity on items currently being produced or to be produced on active contracts. 

Advance phone calls are encouraged. 

(f) Determine the need for current/future contract modification. If there is limited benefit 

to this action (small numbers, small probability of defects), you can by-pass this action. If 

there is benefit, request the Contracting Officer to modify active contracts and 

active/pending/future solicitations. 

(g) Obtain appropriate disposition instructions on the item from the item manager 

(appropriate supply operations element) or the Contracting Officer. Disposition 

instructions for the deficient item are usually always necessary. However, if you do not 

believe there is a benefit to this, and your Branch Chief concurs with this determination, 

you can by-pass this action. [1] If the decision is made that the customers must dispose of 

nonserviceable materiel, an evaluation must be made regarding whether the item must be 

demilitarized or mutilated. If the defect is severe enough that it is desired that the materiel 

not be reutilized by Government activities or sold to private industry, mutilization 

instructions must be given to the Screening Point for transmittal to the originator. When 

giving mutilization instructions, specify how the items are to be mutilated. If the 

originator does not have equipment or capability to perform required mutilization, 

alternate instructions must be given for shipment to a place that can perform mutilization 

and/or contracting for such mutilization with a Contractor. [2] On a stocked item(s) 

customers are to be furnished disposition instructions authorizing turn-in (i.e., local 

DRMO or return to DLA depot for contractor rework consolidation) of the deficient 

stocked material and credit recommended as soon as the PQDR is validated. Customers 

will not be expected to shoulder the burden for nonserviceable stocked materiel once the 

discrepancy has been validated. Stocked materiel shipped by the Depots/Storage Sites to 

defense contractors for repair will be returned to the Depot/Storage Site and not to the 
customer. Materiel identified for disposal will not be returned to a Depot/Storage Site, 

but will be disposed of locally by the customer. [3] On a nonstocked item (i.e., Direct 

Vendor Delivery), customers are to be furnished disposition instructions which include an 

accurate estimate (date, usually not to exceed 60 days from date of contractor receipt of 

deficient material) of when nonstocked material, being shipped to a contractor facility for 

repair/ replacement, may be returned to the customer. Credit will be authorized for this 

material if it is not returned to the customer. ICP contracting personnel have been 

instructed to carefully compare anticipated procurement lead-time to contractor 

replacement turnaround time before providing disposition instructions on nonstocked 

material. Customers may be instructed to return nonstocked items to contractors for 

repair; however, better postaward visibility will be maintained and conveyed to the 

customer through interim follow-up reports. 

(h) Provide a copy of the PQDR to DFAS element for appropriate billing adjustment. If 

there is no benefit to this action (for example, the user stated that they do not desire 

credit), you can by-pass this action. You must still make a recommendation on credit in 

the response letter. 

(14) Perform Actions to Preclude Recurrence: 

(a) Recommend specification/drawing changes to ESA/SPA as necessary. However, if 

there is no benefit to this action (for example, the item will soon be obsolete), you can 

by-pass this action. 

(b) Change the ICP CTDF, for future buys, if it is determined that a change is necessary. 

If there is no benefit to this, you can by-pass this action. 

(c) Issue a QALI to Inspection Activities or Depot/Storage Sites if it is determined that 

instructions are necessary. 

(d) DLA Supply ICP personnel responsible for PQDR investigations shall provide copies 

of contractor-caused PQDRs to the contractors. When the contractor is considered 

responsible for the cause of the nonconformance, the investigator shall request the 

contractor to provide, at no cost to the Government, confirmation of the cause and 

identify the corrective action taken to prevent recurrence. To obtain repair/replacement of 

contractor-caused defective materiel, the PQDR investigator shall request the Contracting 

Officer to notify the contractor of the PQDR and request corrective action. The 

investigator, to assure that action is taken, should perform follow-up. Corrective actions 

taken, by DLA and the contractor, shall always be documented in the final reply and the 

PQDR history file. 

(e) Advise Contracting Officer of adverse contractor quality history. 

(f) Notify and provide assistance to the GIDEP representative for use in preparation of a 

GIDEP ALERT when deficiencies are traced to inadequate controls or use of improper 

materials or processes during manufacturing and the material has both Government and 

industrial application. Issuance of a GIDEP Alert is to be done in addition to alerting the 

DoD customers. GIDEP Alerts are not a substitute for notifying customers. (15). A 

PQDR shall be considered completed when investigation findings, disposition 
instructions (provided by contracting/supply), field fix information, allowance for credit 

or no credit have been determined, actions are taken to correct the deficiency, and actions 

have been initiated to preclude recurrence. Upon this completion, a final reply shall be 

sent to the complaint originator. Any further related actions, such as sending the PQDR to 

contracting or counsel for action/litigation to be completed with the contractor, sending 

the PQDR to DFAS for credit action to be completed, or sending the PQDR to an 

Engineering Support Activity for a design change to be made, shall be performed after 

final response completion. 

(16) Prepare a final reply to the PQDR following guidance in 

DLAD/DLAI 4155.24, Product Quality Deficiency Report Program. 

Enclose a copy of the support point's DLA Form 1227, Product Quality 

Deficiency Investigation Report, (when available/pertinent). 

(17) Send final replies to the appropriate component screening point 

[EXCEPTION: Responses to SF 368 forms/messages received from 

Army Depots for Army materiel will be sent directly to the Depot, with 

a copy furnished to the Army screening point]. Category I PQDR 

responses will be signed by the ICP managers (or acting managers) 

assigned responsibility for the item/groups of items that provide overall 

direction/oversight control of the quality processes without power of redelegation. Category II PQDR responses will be signed, as a minimum, 

by the supervisor (or acting supervisor). Signatures on final replies 

constitute management's documentation of the determination that the 

PQDR process was correctly implemented and sound technical 

decisions were achieved. 

(18) After final response has been provided to the screening point, 

monitor all actions initiated to assure they are completed (e.g., 

specification or drawing change, stock screening, return/disposal of 

exhibits, review of new solicitations/contracts for inclusion of CTDF 

changes). Establish control to assure follow-up actions are completed. 

(19) Update quality history files. The establishment of a proper audit 

trail for all pertinent actions and decisions related to the processing of 

each deficiency report and related materiel is essential and all actions 

must be properly documented. The final reply represents all 

comprehensive documentation, including decisions pertinent to testing, 

screening, and feedback to contractors. If it is determined inappropriate 

to place this documentation in the final reply, the PQDR history file 

should contain the documentation. In addition to the PQDR history file, 

documentation of the full PQDR investigation and resolution actions 

should be placed in the automated deficiency reporting system. See 

paragraph 43. 

29. CUSTOMER/DEPOT COMPLAINT E-MAIL PROCEDURES. The Military 

Services, DLA ICPs, and Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC) have the 

capability to send and receive Electronic Mail (e-mail) messages that report complaints 

on DLA materiel. DLA elements (both ICPs and DCMC) will use e-mail to the maximum 

extent, in sending and receiving e-mail messages that transmit complaints, information 

about complaints, complaint investigation results, and responses to complaints. 
a. The ICP Focal Point is responsible for receiving and controlling e-mail complaints 

transmitted to them through the e-mail system and forwarding them to the appropriate 

Action Points. The ICP Focal Point will: 

(1) Establish and maintain a e-mail mailbox address that will serve as 

the ICP's central point for the receipt of e-mail complaints that are 

originated by DLA's Military Service customers. 

(2) Receive e-mail complaints that are transmitted to the ICP and 

maintain archival files of complaints that are received. E-mail 

mailboxes should be checked at least once per day for incoming 

complaint messages. 

(3) Use the e-mail complaints that are received as basic source 

documents for entry of complaint information into the Customer Depot 

Complaint System (or other complaint computer systems as 

applicable). 

(4) Transmit the e-mail complaint to the appropriate action office. 

(5) On an exception and as-needed basis, provide hard-copy printouts 

of complaints (or re-transmit e-mail documents) to replace lost 

documents, or to provide evidence of receipt times. 

(6) The ICP Focal Point will not be required to transmit complaints via 

e-mail to Support Points. If the ICP Focal Point receives investigation 

results from Support Points, the messages received will be forwarded to 

the appropriate Action Point without need for entry into the CDCS 

system. 

(7) The ICP Focal Point will not be required to transmit complaints via 

e-mail to Screening Points/Originating Points unless an agreement 

between organizations is made to allow this. This agreement shall be in 

writing. 

b. The ICP Action Points will: 

(1) Receive e-mail complaints that are transmitted to their address from 

the ICP Focal Point. Complaints received directly from originators will 

be transferred to the ICP Focal Point. E-mail mailboxes should be 

checked at least once per day for incoming complaint messages. 

(2) Send complaints to Support Points, as needed for investigation, and 

e-mail formatted complaints, as necessary, to the appropriate Support 

Points (i.e., Deficiency Report Program Managers at DCMC offices). 

E-mail addresses for Deficiency Report Program Managers can be 

found through the Internet at: http://www.dcmc.dla.mil. All complaints 

will be sent with a message that includes: a statement of the support 

required (e.g., investigation or information only), a suspense date for 

the response (normally 30 days for a Category II Product Quality 

Deficiency Report (PQDR)), and the pertinent background data which 

may be helpful in the investigation effort. 

(3) Receive complaint investigation responses, and requests for 

additional information, via e-mail. E-mail mailboxes should be checked 

at least once per day for e-mail correspondence. 
(4) Complaints should be sent "(R)registered" with a return receipt 

requested. The Action Point that sends the complaint will monitor the 

system to assure that the addressee received the complaint. 

(5) The ICP Action Points will send complaint responses to Screening 

Points/Originating Points. The e-mail address of the Point that sent the 

original e-mail complaint will be used unless other arrangements are 

made with the Screening Point/Originating Point. The e-mail responses 

will be accompanied by an attachment of the Support Point's DLA 

Form 1227 Format and will include all information required in 

paragraph 27 of this manual. 

c. The ICP Control Point is responsible for periodically analyzing the processes and 

results of e-mail complaint transmission, to assure the e-mail system is operating 

satisfactorily, and taking appropriate action as necessary. 

30. CUSTOMER DEPOT COMPLAINT SYSTEM (CDCS) 

a. The CDCS is designed to: 

(1) Automate the routine tasks involved with the processing of 

complaints at ICPs. These routine tasks include capability to: 

(a) Generate a control number for the complaint. 

(b) Search and extract information from existing data files. 

(c) Generate an acknowledgment to be sent to the complaint originator or screening point. 

(d) Collect and retain complaint, investigation, and resolution information. 

(2) Control the status and aging of complaints. The CDCS will: 

(a) Provide information, track the complaint's progress and status, including sequential 

assignment within ICP, date transferred, length of stay, and new location. 

(b) Establish suspense dates for aging control. 

(3) Provide information to aid in investigation of complaints, which 

includes the capability to: 

(a) Notify Supply and Contracting personnel of complaint assignment. 

(b) Generate a notification to a Depot that investigation or coordination is required and 

transmit the report for Depot action. 

(4) Provide notification to contracting personnel on the number and 

type of complaints. 

(5) Provide input to a contractor performance history report for 

Contracting Officers, Quality Assurance personnel, and other interested 

parties. 

(6) Provide reports to Business Office/DFAS personnel of all credits 

granted to assist them in maintaining and analyzing accounts and 

claims receivable. Each ICP that has implemented the CDCS has a 
focal point for receipt and processing of all CDCs, action points which 

investigate, resolve, and respond to complaints, and a control point 

which analyzes and controls the CDCS at the ICP. b. Focal Point 

personnel will: 

1. Receive and perform initial entry of customer depot complaints into CDCS. 

(a) All copies of the complaints will be dated with date of receipt on the top right corner 

of the form or document immediately upon receipt. 

(b) Complaints received on forms or message format will be entered directly into the 

CDCS system. 

(c) Receive complaints from users by Phone. Phone complaints will usually not be made 

to the focal point. However, if they are, the complaints received by phone at the focal 

point will be put on the form to which the complaint refers (e.g., product quality 

complaint information will be put on an SF-368). The information on these forms will be 

entered directly into the CDCS system. 

(d) Check for basic information. If basic information (NSN, Condition Code, Contract, 

Delivery Number, Prime, Quantity, Dollar Value, and Discrepancy) is not on 

form/message document, the receiving clerk will attempt to contact the originator for the 

information. If originator is unavailable, or information is not quickly retrievable, the 

clerk will not pursue the missing information. 

(e) Evaluate complaints to determine if the complaint is a new complaint or a follow-up. 

If it is determined to be a new complaint, it will be evaluated to determine if it requires 

research/resolution or if it is for information only. [1] Follow-ups will be entered as a 

maintenance action using published terminal procedure. [2] Complaints determined to be 

information only will be closed at the time of new complaint entry with the hard copy 

forwarded to the appropriate office conspicuously marked "Information Only." [3] The 

data entry personnel will enter all available data into the system, including mandatory and 

optional data. [4] If optional data (all except NSN & screening point) is not available or is 

unobtainable, the field will be left blank. Under no circumstances will dummy or 

nonstandard codes be used. [5] The focal point creates a new record. [a] Data entry clerks 

will prioritize complaints in the following order for processing: 

PRIORITY TYPE OF DOCUMENT 

 1 Category I PQDRs (SF-368/message/phone) 

 2 Category II PQDRs (SF-368) 

 3 Audit Substandards 

 4 Contract receipt SDRs (SF-364) 

 5 Packaging SDRs (SF-364) 

 6 DISREPs (SF-361) 

 7 Depot Complaints (DD-1225) 

 8 Field SDRs (SF-364) 

 9 Customer Returns (SF-364)/ 

 10 Any other 

 

[b] Use published terminal procedure for entering data elements. [c] Initial status will be 

entered using the code for the action office that has responsibility. [d] Data element 
"Discrepancy" will be put into abbreviated English as much as possible to fit maximum 

information in the 64 spaces. 

(6) The control number that is assigned by the computer will be put on 

original document/form in the top right corner. 

(f) Process rejects per published terminal procedures. 

(g) Forward complaint to the proper office. Duplicating and filing a copy of the 

complaint at the focal point may be performed at the option of the focal point. Category I 

PQDRs and time sensitive complaints will be hand-carried to the proper office. 

(h) Perform deletion, reactivation of records, and changes to the received date. 

(1) A copy of the PQDR or data entry request sheet will be provided to 

the focal point by the requesting office. (Incorrect data entry requests 

should be resolved before computer entry.) 

(2) Enter information required on screen per published procedures. 

c. The Control Point will: 

(1) Receive, review, analyze, and distribute all ICP internal CDCS 

reports and mail CDCS external reports. 

(2) Use CDCS scheduled product reports to control complaints for the 

activity. Specifically, report numbers F-477, F-485, F-486, F-488, F489 will be analyzed to determine the numerical trends. Adverse or 

significant trends will be reported to management. Trends to be 

analyzed are as follows: 

(a) Report F-485 - total actions and each document/discrepancy type. 

(b) Report F-486 - total actions and each category of aging for each status code and 

discrepancy type. 

(c) Report F-477 and F-489 - higher age groups and significant dollar values, for 

complaints of each element of organizations. 

(d) Report F-478 - higher age groups and significant dollar values. 

(3) Use CDCS scheduled products in conjunction with sampling 

techniques, to assure the focal point and all other organizations are 

entering complete and accurate data into CDCS. 

(4) Perform trend analysis. 

(a) Trends of NSNs, contractors, shipping activity, CAO, and screening point/originators 

will be analyzed separately using CDCS products F-478, F-481, F-487A, F-487B, F490B, F-491. Minimum analysis will be performed for each area as follows: [1] Most 

complaints. [2] Fewest complaints. [3] Recurring problems. [4] Significant deviations of 

report numbers and report quantities. 
(b) Report F-488 will be used to analyze increases and decreases in occurrence 

percentage for each element of discrepancy, cause, disposition, and correction. 

(c) Reports to management and reports to action points for correction/preventive action 

will be provided. 

(d) Collect information on the effectiveness and efficiency of CDCS and propose 

changes/take action as necessary. 

d. The Quality Assurance Action Points are the personnel in the ICP's Commodity 

Business Units (CBUs)/Product Centers who are responsible for receiving, investigating, 

resolving, and responding to complaints. They will: 

(1) Receive complaints from the focal point. The forms/documents will 

have a date and a control number in the upper right corner of the 

document. Forms/documents/messages received without a date and 

control number will be transmitted to the focal point. 

(2) Review the complaint for completeness to perform the 

investigation/resolution and contact the originator (or perform research) 

to obtain missing or additional information as necessary. If additional 

information is obtained or information correction is necessary, the 

additional data will be entered into the CDCS by the Action Officer. 

(3) Receive phone complaints. 

(a) Information received by phone will be put on the form to which the complaint refers 

(e.g., product quality complaints will be put on an SF-368). 

(b) The form will be transmitted to the focal point for processing. If the report is a 

Category I PQDR or a time sensitive complaint, a duplicate of the report will be made 

and retained to begin immediate resolution action and the original form will be handcarried to the focal point for processing. 

(4) Control complaints in its area. 

(a) A listing of new complaints (i.e., CDCS Report F477A, F477B,F479A, or F479B) 

assigned to the action point will be obtained periodically, but at least monthly, and 

annotated with the assigned Action Officer's name to assure that all complaints entered 

into the CDCS have been received from the focal point and assigned for action. 

(b) Scheduled products and reports will be obtained and reviewed by supervisor 

personnel and the Action Officer, as required but at least monthly, to maintain 

cognizance over workload, open actions, near due, and past due suspense of complaints. 

(5) Use complaint history information for investigation of complaints. 

(a) The action office will check the CDCS records using the CDCS terminal and, if 

necessary, will check Report F-480, Product Quality Deficiency report, and Report F499, Closed Item by NSN (on microfiche), to assure that: 
(b) Check that the complaint is not a duplicate of a previously entered report. Duplicates 

will be returned to the focal point with a request for the complaint to be removed from 

CDCS. 

(c) Check that the complaint is not related to a complaint resolution that has been made 

previously. The action of the resolution will be performed, if appropriate, and closing 

actions will be made. 

(d) Check that the complaint is not similar to a previous complaint that has been resolved. 

The action point will determine the applicability of performing a similar resolution or 

increasing corrective action measures due to the recurring nature of the complaint. 

(e) Check that a trend is not developing that would indicate contractor, NSN, CAO, or 

shipping activity problems are occurring. 

(6) Enter interim action and status information as soon as it is known 

and provide the hard copy to the new action point. At this time, the 

discrepancy code should be entered if known. 

(7) Enter closing action information into the CDCS as follows: 

(a) Additional basic information that assures a complete record. 

(b) Closing action code information. CDCS codes to be used by Quality Assurance 

personnel are listed on figure 30-1. 

(c) Final Discrepancy narrative. 

(d) Closing narratives. The final discrepancy and closing narratives will be written in 

abbreviated English to assure maximum information is provided in the space provided. 

Examples: (Cause) KTR at fault-Worn fixture in Mach Oper-only KR 81-C-XXX 

involved (Disposition) KTR repaired-no cost to Govt-screened stoks-rtnd mat to DDSP 

as CCA (Correction) KTR replaced fixture & dev new Mach Oper proced-DCMC to 

monitor 

(8) Prepare and mail responses, as necessary, to the originator or 

screening point. 

(9) Enter "Completion" date into the CDCS. 

(10) Maintain a copy of the complaint and the response. 

(11) If there are additional action points where the complaint is to be 

processed (i.e., to the Comptroller for credit) enter the appropriate 

status code and provide a copy of the complaint to the new action point. 

If no further action points are required, the Action Officer will enter the 

closure date into the system and close the record. 

 CDC CODES 

 

Cause Codes 

 

CODE EXPLANATION 
CA Catalog 

Incompatibility/Error 

CE Contracting Error 

CN Contractor 

Noncompliance 

CP Contractor 

Noncompliance (Packaging Contractor) 

CR Carrier 

Responsibility 

CS Contractor 

Noncompliance (Subcontractor) 

DE Contract 

Administration Services QA Error 

EE Engineering Error 

EL Customer Alert 

FD Multiple 

Requisitions (DFAS processing) 

ID Inadequate 

Contract Technical Data Error 

IE Item/Equipment 

Incompatibility 

IS Inadequate 

Specifications 

MA Misapplication by 

Customer (User Error) 

ME Maintenance Error 

MM Misidentified 

Material 

OA Invalid Complaint 

Use Only 

OT Other/Does Not 

Apply 

QA Inadequate 

Contractual Quality Assurance Requirements 

RE Requisitioner 

error 

SA Screening 

Activity Error 

SE Engineering 

Support Activity/Specification Preparing Activity/Service 

 User Error 

SI Simplified 

Investigation - cause not determined 

SL Expired ShelfLife 

SR Shipper 

Responsibility 

SU Supply Operations 

Error 

TR Transshipper 

Activity/Other Responsibility 

UA Unapproved Source 

US Unapproved 

Substitute 

WE Storage Site Error 

 

 
FIGURE 30-1 

Correction to Cause Code 

 

CODE 

EXPLANATION 

 

AA Advise Screening 

Activity 

AC Advise Contracting 

AO Advise Supply 

Operations 

AQ Advise Quality 

Assurance 

AR Advise 

Requisitioner as to their Appropriate Action 

AS Advise Technical 

Support 

AT Advise Storage & 

Transportation 

CA Correspondence 

with Contract Administration Service 

CC Correspondence 

with Contractor 

CT Correspondence 

with Cognizant Transportation Officer 

IS Issue Quality 

Assurance Letter Of Instruction (QALI) by NSN or 

 Contractor 

NO No Action Required 

RA Request Contract 

Administration Services QA Support 

RB Review Operational 

Procedures for Adequacy 

RC Request CenterWide Consolidated Position 

RD Request Depot QA 

Support 

RE Review Policy 

RF Review Storage 

Serviceability Standards for Shelf-Life Requirements 

RH Request HQ-DLA 

Assistance 

RI Invalid Complaint 

RJ Request Joint 

Quality System Review 

RM Recommend Contract 

Modification 

RO Request PostAward 

on Current Contracts 

RP Request PreAward 

Survey Prior To Future Contracts 

RQ Request Special 

Inspections 

RR Review Item to 

Determine Appropriate Inspection Point and/or Quality 

 Requirement 
RS Recommend 

Specification/Standard/Drawing Review 

RT Request Testing 

RU Recommend Carrier 

Disqualification 

SQ Schedule Quality 

Systems Management Visit 

UC Update Catalog 

Description 

UT Update Contract 

Technical Data File 

 

FIGURE 30-1 

 

 

Discrepancy Code 

 

CODE 

EXPLANATION 

 

Stored Material 

 

A1 Condition of 

Stored Material Changed because of Damage 

A2 Condition of 

Stored Material Changed Because of Deterioration 

A3 Stored Material 

is Misidentified 

A4 Stored Material 

is Incomplete 

A5 Stored Material 

Requires Repair 

 

Condition of Material 

 

C1 In Condition 

Other Than That Indicated on Release/Receipt Document 

C2 Expired ShelfLife 

C3 Damaged Parcel 

Post Shipment 

C4 Exceeded Delivery 

Age Control 

C5 Damaged Freight 

Shipment 

C6 Damage Caused by 

Pilferage, Vandalism or Theft 

 

Documentation 

 

D1 Supply 

Documentation Not Received 

D2 Supply 

Documentation Illegible or Mutilated 

D3 Supply 

Documentation Incomplete, Improper or Without Authority 

 
Wood Products (Can be redefined by centers to reflect 

unique discrepancies) 

 

L1 Moisture Exceeds 

Allowable Percentage 

L2 Not Treated In 

Accordance With Specifications 

L3 Product Off Grade 

L4 Improper Size 

L5 Improper Tally 

L6 Improper or No 

Grademark On Product 

L7 Rotten Product 

L8 Splits, Excessive 

Wane, Scant, or Not End Trimmed (One or All) 

 

Misdirected (Redefined temporarily for Year 2000 

Problems) 

 

M1 Y2K Problem 

 

Overage 

 

O1 Quantity Received 

More Than Quantify on Receipt Document 

O2 Quantity Received 

More than Quantity Requested Plus Variance, If 

 Applicable 

O3 Quantity Received 

Duplicates Shipment 

O4 Quantity Received 

More Than Quantity on Transportation Document 

 (SF361) 

 

Packaging 

 

PO Improper 

Packaging 

P1 Improper 

Preservation 

P2 Improper Packing 

P3 Improper Marking 

P4 Improper 

Unitization 

P5 Improper LOGMARS 

P6 Improper ShelfLife Markings 

P7 Missing Part 

Number of Container 

P8 PPP Contract 

Deficiency Which has been Corrected / Is Being 

 Corrected by 

the Depot. 

 

Product Quality Deficiencies 

 
Q1 Deficient 

Material (Grant Aid and FMS Only) 

Q2 Quality 

Deficiency 

Q3 Customer Return & 

Improvement Initiative 

Q4 Multiple 

Requisitions 

Q5 Invalid 

Q6 Item Failed 

Under Use 

Q7 Safety Hazard 

 

Shortage of Material 

 

S1 Quantity Less 

Than Quantity on Receipt Document 

S2 Quantity Less 

Than Quantity Requested Minus Variances, if Applicable 

S3 Parcel Post not 

Received 

S4 Material Not 

Received but Billed 

S5 Quantity Less 

Than Quantity on Transportation Document (SF361) 

 

Technical Data 

 

T1 Missing 

T2 Illegible or 

Mutilated 

T3 Precautionary 

Operational Markings Missing 

T4 Inspection Data 

Missing 

T5 Serviceability 

Operating Data Missing or Incomplete 

T6 Warranty 

 

Wrong Item 

 

W0 Unidentifiable 

W1 Incorrect Item 

Received 

W2 Unacceptable 

Substitute 

W3 Unit of Issue 

Incompatibility 

W4 Incorrect Part 

Number 

W5 Missing Part 

Number on Bare Item 

W6 Mixed Stock 

W7 Wrong Item 

Purchased 

W8 Wrong Item of 

Issue Shown on Procurement Instrument 
W9 Incomplete Item 

 

Damage 

 

X1 Received in 

Damaged/Unserviceable Condition 

XL Hazardous 

Material 

 

FIGURE 30-1 

 

Disposition Codes 

 

CODE 

EXPLANATION 

 

AB Return to Depot 

AD Disposal 

Requested/Authorized 

CC Corrective Action 

Made by Government with Reimbursement Made by 

 Contractor 

Under a Recovery Program 

CG Corrective Action 

Made by Government without Reimbursement 

CH Change Condition 

Code and Re-Submit 

CL Claim Less Than 

Minimum Allowance - Administrative Allowance 

DA Damage Attributed 

to DLA - Disposed Previously 

DC Deleted Complaint 

(*See Note*) 

DD Damage Attributed 

to DLA - Dispose 

DF Damage Attributed 

to DLA - Repair Order to Follow 

DR Damage Attributed 

to DLA - Depot Repair Authorized 

FA Material Damaged 

in Transit, Carrier Responsibility 

FB Material Damaged 

in Transit, Carrier Responsibility, Depot Repair 

IC Invalid 

Complaint 

ID Insufficient 

Data for Investigation or Report. Further Data Needed 

IM Items Unusable, 

Return to Depot 

IR Items 

Redirected By Government with Recovery from Contractor 

IS Items 

Redirected By Government without Recovery from Contractor 

IT Items Replaced 

or Repaired by Contractor under a Recovery Program 

IU Items Retained 

with Consideration from Contractor 
IV Items Retained 

without Consideration from Contractor 

IW Items Retained 

without Cost 

IX Items Returned 

to Contractor for Redirection 

IY Items 

Unsuitable, Destroy 

IZ Items 

Unsuitable, Dispose 

MC Material 

Components Furnished 

MD Multiple 

Disposition Instructions Provided Off-Line 

NM Not Managed by 

Center, Referred to Proper Item Manager 

OA Documentation 

Furnished 

OB Overage/Shortage 

with Contract Variation Clause 

OC Contractor 

Abandoned Property, Dispose 

OF Contract 

Shortage, Contractor to Replace 

OG Information Only, 

No Action Necessary 

OH Substitute 

Acceptable 

OI Contractor 

Abandoned Property, Return to Stock 

OM Overage/Shortage 

Not due to Packaging/Duplicate Shipment 

OS Contract Overage, 

Off-Line Instructions to Follow 

OT Other/Does Not 

Apply 

RA Return to Storage 

Activity 

RB Return to Depot - 

Transship to Contractor 

RC Return to 

Contractor 

RD Return of 

Contractor without Replacement 

RE Rights Have 

Expired and Recovery Not Made, Inventory Loss 

RF Retain for Future 

Supply Decision 

RG Replacement 

(Repair/Refund) by Contractor Goodwill Gesture 

RH Use As Is 

RM Remark And Return to 

Stock 

RO Inspect and Return 

to Stock 

FIGURE 30-1 

Disposition Codes 
 

CODE 

EXPLANATION 

 

RP Repackage and 

Return to Stock 

RQ Request for 

Information 

RR Refund for Item(s) 

Obtained Under a Special Recovery Program 

RS Return to Stock 

As Is 

RW Authorization to 

Rework 

SD Safety Hazard, 

Destroy 

SH Safety Hazard, 

Dispose 

SM Shipment Status to 

Customer 

SN Not Traceable 

SP Shipment Lost or 

Insufficient, Proof of Shipment Obtained From 

 Contractor 

SQ Decentralized 

Issue 

SS Contract Shortage 

- Additional Stock not Expected 

TA Tracer Action Via 

SF 361 

TC Test Confirms 

Report 

TE Classified, 

Sensitive, or Technical Material, Release to Carrier for 

 Repair or 

Salvage Prohibited 

TG Technical 

Evaluation of Damaged Items Provided Directing Disposal 

 or Delivery to 

Carrier for Salvage 

TL Time Limit Expired 

TN Test Does Not 

Confirm Report 

W1 Customer to Submit 

FTE 

 

* NOTE: DC can not be input by user. It is automatically assigned 

when a delete action is taken by the focal point. 

 

FIGURE 30-1 

 

31. QUALITY SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT VISITS (QSMVs) 

a. QSMVs are quality assurance visits to contractor facilities, Engineering Support 

Activities (ESAs), SPA Activities, contractor or Government laboratories, contractoroperated warehouses, contractor facilities for storage and maintenance of DLA items, 
Defense Depots, GSA-operated depots, posts, camps, stations, military bases, shipyards, 

and non-DLA activities where DLA stocks are stored, maintained, handled, or used. 

Examples of situations when QSMVs may be advantageous are: 

(1) The contracting, storage, or issuance of a new item or contracting 

with a new contractor. 

(2) Repetitive noncompliance by a contractor. 

(3) Examination of first article/first lot. 

(4) Receipt of DD Form 1716, Contract Data Package 

Recommendation/ Deficiency Report. 

(5) Investigation of customer or depot generated quality complaints or 

allegations of adverse quality involving DLA contracts. 

(6) Investigation as to cause of defective stock/shipments reported by 

Product Verification. 

(7) When a specific depot or customer has a quality problem; when 

assistance is required by a contractor; when requested by the CAO; 

when requested by HQ DLA. 

(8) Request for approval of nonstandard sampling plan. 

(9) Review and clarification of quality, reliability/maintainability 

requirements. 

(10) Need to participate in Preaward Surveys and Postaward 

Conferences. 

(11) Review of special preshipment inspections for Foreign Military 

Sales. 

(12) Performance of economic analysis of repairable/nonconforming 

material or quality evaluation studies for commodities managed. 

(13) Development of, and providing, commodity-oriented training. 

(14) Review of equipment calibration controls and calibration system 

implementation consistent with requirements of DLAR 4155.21, DLA 

Metrology and Calibration Program. 

(15) Survey QSL/QML applicants. 

b. Personnel performing Quality functions should perform the following procedures: 

(1) Perform advance planning of needed travel, this includes: 

preparation of estimates of proposed travel for the coming fiscal year 

and making subsequent revisions of budget needs for planned visits. 

(2) Plan, schedule and perform QSMVs to ensure optimum use of 

technical expertise and available travel funds, and to ease 

administrative burden of facilities visited. 

(3) Schedule and perform QSMVs to the maximum extent in 

conjunction with Preaward Surveys, Postaward Conferences, First 
Article inspections, or QSRs conducted by cognizant CAS components; 

with quality audits or surveillance inspections performed at storage and 

maintenance activities; and, for resolution of special contracting or 

product problems that arise. 

(4) Preliminary Planning of a visit: 

(a) Personnel planning a QSMV will review applicable contractor, item, and specification 

quality history files, PQDRs, storage discrepancy reports, Preaward Surveys, product 

waiver/deviation requests, and other quality data before making the visit. This review will 

enable QA personnel to become familiar with likely problem areas at contractor and 

Government activities to be visited and enable the specialists to concentrate their efforts 

in such problem areas. 

(b) QA personnel will coordinate, as appropriate, with other ICP personnel, such as 

contracting, supply and technical to fully prepare for the visit. It may also be necessary to 

communicate with other DLA and Military Service components to obtain data/ 

information required for the visit. (c) Activities to be visited will be contacted for 

notification/ coordination in advance of the visit. 

(d) Ensure surveys or reviews performed during QSMVs are product or commodityoriented and tailored to the type of facility to be visited. 

(e) Advise and request participation of the cognizant CAS component, to include USDA, 

USDC and FDA, for QSMVs at a contractor's facility. 

(f) Request DLSC-LEQ participation in a specific QSMV when support/assistance is 

needed. 

(5) Performance of QSMVs to contractor facilities will be 

accomplished: to participate in Preaward Surveys and Postaward 

Conferences; inspect first article and first lots; perform QSRs; 

investigate contracting or product problems; determine the adequacy of 

specification requirements, and product conformance to technical 

requirements; and/or to provide technical support/assistance. Visits to 

Contractor Facilities will include considerations to: 

(a) Hold an advance meeting with responsible Government personnel to discuss purpose 

of visit and working arrangements during the visit. 

(b) Upon arrival at the plant, ICP personnel will hold an entrance meeting with available 

Government personnel to review the purpose of the visit, needed assistance, extent of 

participation, work assignments and arrangements for a meeting with the contractor's 

responsible personnel. 

(c) Depending on the nature of the visit, ICP personnel will: [1] Review the contractual 

quality and technical requirements with contractor personnel and the QAR to determine if 

the requirements are adequate and properly interpreted. [2] Inspect the product to assure 

conformance to specified requirements. [3] Review QALIs, if applicable, for necessity 

and effectiveness. [4] Assist in problem resolution with emphasis on cause. [5] Provide 

technical support to the contractor and QAR. 
(d) ICP personnel performing QSMVs shall recognize the contractor, PCO, and CAO 

relationship at all times. To prevent misinterpretation, constructive changes to contracts 

or inappropriate Government actions, verbal instructions will not be provided to QARs 

through channels outside of the CAO. A Contracting Officer letter, message, or 

contractual instrument must formally document all such instructions. If the QAR is 

requested to follow verbal instructions due to urgency, QA personnel/Contracting 

Officers shall process the request through the ACO, who will inform the QAR of actions 

to be taken. Actions that necessitate modification of existing contract requirements will 

not be imposed on the contractor prior to official contract modification by the 

Contracting Officer. Changes to QALIs previously issued to QARs will be in writing 

(message permitted). 

(e) ICP personnel will hold an exit interview with the QAR and other Government 

personnel upon departure. Problems encountered and observations made during the visit 

will be fully discussed and agreements reached for resolution or further action. 

(f) Forward the findings of the QSMV by letter to all interested personnel (i.e., the PCO, 

ESA/SPA, and the CAO and QAR of the cognizant CAS component, to include USDA, 

USDC and FDA). Where HQ DLA/DLSC action is required, a copy also will be 

furnished to HQ DLA, ATTN: DLSC-LEQ with appropriate comments and 

recommendations. 

(6) Visits to Storage and Maintenance Activities. Commensurate with 

the type of activity to be visited and the purpose of the visit, ICP 

personnel performing quality assurance functions will: 

(a) Review quality and technical requirements in contracts assigned for technical 

inspection and acceptance at destination with storage quality control personnel to 

determine if the requirements are adequate and properly interpreted. If required, 

inspection of the product may be made to assure conformance to the technical 

requirements. 

(b) Review instructions issued by the ICP, such as storage standards, maintenance 

standards, shelf life inspection criteria, and special inspection guidelines, with storage 

and maintenance personnel to assure that they are adequate and understood in the areas of 

special handling, storage, transportation, packaging, marking, repair, rebuild, and 

assembly. 

(c) Determine whether work is being accomplished at maintenance activities in 

accordance with instructions in project orders, adequacy of quality control functions, 

adequacy of technical quality requirements and technical maintenance standards or 

maintenance instructions provided with project orders, and need for additional technical 

assistance. 

(d) Assist DLA Product Verification Program implementation; provide training; assist in 

performance of PVP inspections/tests; validate PVP test failures. 

(e) Assist in problem resolution with emphasis on cause. 
(f) Provide support to storage and maintenance quality control personnel and Product 

Testing Center personnel. 

(g) Develop and provide commodity oriented training. 

(7) Visits to Other Government Activities. In addition to contractor 

plants and storage/maintenance sites, QSMVs to other Government 

activities are essential to obtain, develop, and/or disseminate qualityrelated data for effective QA. For this reason visits may be scheduled 

to: 

(a) ESAs and SPAs to coordinate quality data and provide recommendations for 

specification development, changes or revisions. The contracting history and user 

feedback data accumulated at the ICPs are important factors to be considered for 

specification requirements. 

(b) CAS components and other Government activities to provide commodity training and 

expertise, and effect coordination for contracting actions and related quality matters. 

(c) Customer activities to resolve quality problems and advise customers of the proper 

procedures to report such problems, obtain data to assist in development of effective 

quality requirements for materiel purchased, review requirements on contracts assigned 

for destination inspection on direct shipments from contractor facilities for adequacy and 

proper interpretation; and/or provide technical assistance. 

(d) Government or private laboratories to: resolve quality problems, investigate 

disparities between Government and contractor test results, investigate causes for testing 

delays, review in-house quality control procedures, review in-house test procedures and 

methods, and review in-house currency of specifications and procedures. 

(8) Enter QSMV data into the quality history system (i.e., QEP) to 

include a summary of findings, corrective actions taken and estimated 

dates for completion of action. A separate entry should be made for 

each contract NSN, and CAGE, applicable to the trip. If there are too 

many separate NSNs and contracts for each CAGE code, one entry 

should be made for each CAGE code with the NSNs and contracts 

identified in the comment field. 

32. ALLEGATION OF ADVERSE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY INVOLVING 

DLA CONTRACTS 

a. Allegations may be received through many sources including congressional inquiry, 

Hotline reports, DoD Inspector General/GAO/DCIS investigations, and letters sent 

directly to Headquarters DLA, or to a Defense ICP. Personnel assigned Quality functions 

should perform thorough and impartial inquiry to investigate and reply to adverse quality 

and reliability allegations. 

b. Allegations usually arise from, but are not limited to, unsuccessful bidders, 

competitors, subcontractors, public-spirited citizens, company employees, and/or the 

news media, who have developed or received information that has led them to conclude 

that a successful contractor intends to provide, or has provided (intentionally or 

unintentionally) substandard materiel or service. This conclusion is usually based on the 
fact that the successful contractor has contracted to provide materiel or a service at a 

price below what the party making the allegation considers to be reasonable, or below the 

summary of costs that the complaining party has experienced or estimated. 

c. The allegation may or may not be made with supporting evidence. The lack of 

evidence, however, does not necessarily diminish credibility of the allegation. All 

allegations must be given due care and consideration. 

d. FAR, DFARS, and DLAD 4105.1, Part 9, Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective 

Contractors, provide the Contracting Officer with criteria by which a prospective 

contractor can be determined responsible (capable of providing material or service to the 

requisite quality at the lowest cost to DoD). A determination of contractor responsibility, 

however, does not necessarily guarantee conformance of the materiel or service provided. 

From this possibility of nonconformance arises the potential for an allegation of adverse 

quality and reliability. 

e. Allegations as discussed in this section, do not include disclosures of counterfeit 

materiel or unauthorized product substitution, which are covered in paragraph 33 of this 

instruction. 

f. Personnel performing quality functions will: 

(1) Any time fraud or any intentional nonconformance is suspected, 

report the matter to the local Fraud Counsel in accordance with DLAR 

5500.10, Combating Fraud in DLA Operations. 

(2) Upon receipt of an allegation, determine scope of inquiry necessary 

to judge it thoroughly and impartially. Some aspects that will be 

considered are: 

(a) Prior experience in production of an item. 

(b) The quality performance history to include user feedback, and allegations made 

against the contractor in question. Quality history data includes both positive and 

negative performance information. Lack of data in a file should not be assumed to mean 

past satisfactory performance. 

(c) The contracting actions for the materiel or service under inquiry. 

(d) The adequacy of inspection records available in light of the criticality/sensitivity of 

materiel or service. Deficiencies in this area and in quality history files should be 

corrected even if the immediate inquiry does not show specific allegations to be true. 

(e) Need for inspection or reliability testing, if required, as arranged through the Product 

Verification Program office. This re-inspection/testing should be made by qualified, 

responsible personnel other than those who initially inspected and accepted the materiel 

or service. 

(3) Consider assignment of investigation to personnel that have not 

been directly involved with the materiel or service under inquiry. 

(4) Prepare the reply to the allegation in a timely and appropriate 

manner and coordinate the reply with other ICP elements having a 

collateral interest, and with the local Fraud Counsel, if applicable. 
(5) When appropriate, conduct inquiry of quality and reliability 

allegations beyond the scope of information already available to the 

ICP. This may include re-inspection of other lots on the same contract 

and/or concurrent contract(s) (at contractor's plants, storage points, or 

at final destinations), as applicable. 

(6) Make recommendations for corrective action, policy or procedural 

changes, and updating of contracting systems (i.e., CTDF), when 

applicable. Provide complete data on any nonconformances for 

inclusion in the contractor quality history file and for institution of 

warranty action, as appropriate. 

(7) All of the actions described above shall be closely coordinated with 

applicable contracting personnel. Contracting personnel shall be 

notified of the receipt of the allegations, shall furnish assistance as 

requested, and shall be apprised of the conclusion, recommendations, 

and/or actions taken, based on the review of the allegation. 

33. COUNTERFEIT MATERIEL/UNAUTHORIZED PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION 

(CM/UPS). The need for an active program to prevent counterfeiting was established by 

HQ DLA to improve the quality of DLA managed items and to prevent entry of CM/UPS 

into the DoD Supply System. ICPs should screen, investigate, process, and resolve 

written or verbal disclosures of suspected CM/UPS. While each ICP handles CM/UPS 

processing in different ways, typical procedures are as follows: 

a. Any time fraud or any intentional nonconformance is suspected, report the matter to 

the local Fraud Counsel in accordance with DLAR 5500.10, Combating Fraud in DLA 

Operations. 

b. Specific allegations of counterfeiting or substitutions of materiel that are received 

should be provided to personnel within the ICP assigned responsibility for CM/UPS. 

c. PQDRs that suggest counterfeiting or substitutions are not immediately CM/UPS 

cases. The ICP person assigned to work the PQDR should perform a full investigation 

and take appropriate corrective and preventive action on the PQDR. If the findings 

indicate that counterfeiting and product substitutions are routinely taking place, at the 

time of the PQDR completion, the information should be provided to personnel within 

the ICP that is assigned responsibility for CM/UPS. 

d. QA aspects of CM/UPS cases include reviewing item and contractor quality history to 

include review of previous PQDR investigation findings and results, and, as applicable, 

to request special inspection actions, initiate inventory screening actions, determine 

testing requirements, obtain samples, arrange for testing, obtain test results, and interpret 

test results. CM/UPS personnel may need to collaborate with ICP product quality and 

technical personnel as necessary. 

34. CONTRACT DATA PACKAGE RECOMMENDATION/DEFICIENCY REPORTS 

(DD FORM 1716). FAR establishes the requirement for the CAO to report to the PCO 

any observed deficiencies in design or technical requirements, including contract quality 

requirements, and recommend necessary changes to the contract, specifications, or other 

requirements which will provide more effective operations or eliminate unnecessary 

costs. When a DD Form 1716 is referred by the PCO, personnel responsible for quality 

functions will: 
a. Evaluate the recommendation/deficiency for validity and its impact on the quality of 

current and future contracts. The recommendation/deficiency should be evaluated to 

determine the degree of significance and the appropriate course of action. 

b. The DD Form 1716 shall not be used as a vehicle to accept nonconforming materiel. 

Such requests shall not be approved. The response should indicate to the originator that 

acceptance of nonconforming materiel may only be accomplished through the contractual 

waiver/deviation procedures. 

c. The DD Form 1716 shall not be used to reduce, as a matter of expediency, contract 

quality requirements. If the originator indicates that the current contractor is unable 

(intentionally or unintentionally) to perform to the quality requirements for the item, and, 

after a review of the item, it is determined that the requirements are appropriate for the 

item, the quality requirements shall not be diminished. The response should indicate that 

the requirements are correct. 

d. If evaluation has revealed a technical requirement/specification change is necessary, 

coordinate with the ESA, SPA or other Military Service activities. 

e. Determine an appropriate course of action. Based on this course of action, determine if 

suspense date can be met. If resolution will require additional time, inform the 

Contracting Officer and recommend the submitter be informed. 

f. Recommend to the Contracting Officer a course of action or proposed response back to 

the originator to resolve the recommendation/deficiency. 

(1) In the event of a specification/technical requirement change, the 

person responsible for Quality functions, in conjunction with Technical 

personnel, will determine if the change is significant. 

(2) If the change is significant, and delivery and payment have not been 

completed, recommend to the Contracting Officer that current contracts 

be modified and data incorporated into the CTDF/PID. 

(3) If the change is not significant, include the change in the CTDF/PID 

for future contracts. 

35. SUPPLY, STORAGE, AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT. It is essential that 

adequate quality and reliability support be provided to the ICP supply mission. QA 

support to the supply mission is needed throughout the preaward, contracting, storage, 

distribution, and disposal cycles. The quality assurance support should be provided on 

assigned items to item managers, supply officers, and storage and maintenance activities 

(including Military Service activities who receive, store, maintain, and issue DLA-owned 

materiel under the direction of the ICPs, as well as other activities in the DLA materiel 

distribution system). Personnel performing Quality functions will perform actions in the 

following areas: 

a. Provisioning conferences 

(1) Prepare for provisioning conferences by researching the quality 

history of similar items and determining the quality aspects of the 

materiel that may affect the management, storage, and maintenance of 

items. 

(2) Provide recommendations regarding quality to Supply personnel for 

their participation in provisioning conference. 
(3) Participate in provisioning conferences when requested by Supply 

personnel. 

b. Quality history and discrepancy information 

(1) For determination of Method of Support and logistics management, 

determine and provide information to item managers regarding quality 

aspects that have an effect upon the quantity of items to be purchased 

and stocked. This can include such information as the number of items 

that must be destructively tested for each buy, the durability and 

reliability of items, identification of items that require tests and 

evaluations that may increase the procurement lead time, items that 

have had quality problems and resultant large numbers of unissuable 

stock. 

(2) For Backorders, review items held in unissuable status due to 

quality deficiencies. If items are serviceable for issue, and are not 

needed for exhibits or for return to the contractor for repair, 

replacement, or reimbursement, inform the item manager of quantities 

that can be placed in issuable status. Under no circumstances will 

recommendations condone the placing of known unserviceable materiel 

in ready-for-issue stock. 

c. Destination inspection 

(1) Instructions must be provided to the depot if inspection and 

acceptance of contracted materiel at destination requires more than a 

type and kind, quantity and condition inspection. These instructions 

should be placed in a Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI) 

(see chapter 26). 

(2) Commodity training. Participate in the development and the 

conduct of commodity training given Depot inspection and Product 

Testing Center personnel. The training will be tailored to the specific 

situation or individuals involved. 

d. Storage Standards 

(1) Develop depot storage standards in accordance with DoD 4140.27-

M, Shelf Life Management Manual, and DLAD 4155.37, Materiel 

Quality Control Storage Standards, to provide storage inspection 

instructions for assigned items. 

(2) Review requests for waiver of storage quality requirements. The 

review shall be based upon item history and will consider the 

circumstances of each case. When requests are repetitive, consideration 

should be given to revising the storage standards and recommending 

shelf life code changes. Recommendations will be provided to the item 

manager and/or Technical personnel as appropriate. Each request shall 

be documented with the reasons for the original requirement and the 

reasons for changing that requirement. 

e. Maintenance Support 

(1) Provide quality assurance support to the ICP maintenance program. 

This includes support for maintenance performed by Governmentowned maintenance facilities and commercial contractors. 
(2) Evaluate items coded for repair and items proposed for repair, to 

determine if repair is technically and economically feasible. 

(3) Ensure that project orders, work requests, and contracts for 

maintenance prescribe adequate QA requirements and instructions to 

accomplish the required maintenance, either by reference or direct 

incorporation, which includes: 

(a) Determining the availability and adequacy of technical data to support the ICP 

maintenance program. When technical data is determined to be inadequate, or is not 

available, the necessary technical data will be requested from the appropriate Military 

Service or commercial sources via appropriate ICP technical data channels. 

(b) Developing maintenance instructions or TMSs to identify QA maintenance 

requirements in sufficient detail to assure the required level of quality will be obtained. 

(4) Provide assistance to Government personnel performing in-house 

and in-plant maintenance functions. 

(5) Provide QA requirements for packaging in instructions and 

information to Government maintenance facilities and maintenance 

contractors. The "how-to" packaging requirements will be obtained 

from the ICP technical person responsible for technical requirements. 

(6) Review requests for waiver of maintenance quality requirements. 

The review shall be based upon item history and will consider the 

circumstances of each case. When requests are repetitive, consideration 

should be given to revising the requirements. 

(7) Maintain working communications with maintenance activities to 

obtain feedback data generated as a result of maintenance operations, 

enter this information into the QEP, and utilize the information to 

improve QA operations. 

f. Perform QSMVs to selected DLA Storage and Maintenance activities at least annually 

to assure the adequacy and understanding of storage standards, maintenance instructions, 

TMSs, or other technical guidance provided by the ICP, and assist in the solution of 

quality problems. Military Service storage locations will be visited as necessary. 

g. Provide quality information and assistance to Supply operations personnel for the 

resolution of discrepancies. This includes determination of the quality aspects of wrong 

items, overages, shortages, damaged items, etc. 

h. Provide recommendations for the disposition of materiel when requested. 

i. Utilize quality and reliability feedback data from storage and maintenance activities to 

initiate corrective actions and improvements in shelf life criteria, contract requirements, 

and specifications. 

36. SPECIAL INSPECTION ACTIONS. Special Inspections are requests for 

inspections/tests of specific characteristics of items. Normally, the need for special 

inspections of DLA-managed materiel will be determined based on the review and 

evaluation of customer/depot generated quality complaints, laboratory test results and 

other quality history data. Special inspections may be initiated at the request of HQ DLA, 

ICP Contracting Officers, Counsel, technical and quality personnel, engineers, and 
inventory managers. They may also be requested by the Military Services and via 

feedback from QSMVs and QSRs and in the course of investigating allegations of 

adverse quality and reliability or counterfeit/unauthorized substitutions. When review and 

evaluation of applicable quality history indicate a need for special inspection actions or 

requests for special inspection actions have been received, personnel performing quality 

functions will perform the following procedures: 

a. Determine location(s) of all stocks including, when feasible, those in the hands of user 

activities. 

b. Initiate action(s), when determined necessary, to have all stocks suspended from issue. 

Coordinate with the responsible Supply personnel prior to initiating action to have stocks 

suspended from issue when analysis of PQDRs or test results justifies such action. Data 

to be included in the request should be NSN, Contract Number, CLIN, date of 

pack/expiration/ manufacturer/cure/assembly, lot number, and reference to the PQDR 

and/or Test Document Number. 

c. Initiate requests for special inspection actions of DLA-owned stock that involve 

technical inspection to the Product Verification Program office. They will contact the 

appropriate DLA Depot/Contractor/Military Service testing site and arrange for the 

testing. Due to the resource impact of special inspections, detailed justification must be 

included in the request. Requests for special inspection actions shall contain complete 

inspection instructions or other meaningful information needed to adequately perform the 

inspection, including but not limited to the following, as applicable: 

(1) Specification(s), storage standard(s), and other applicable technical 

data, or in lieu thereof, a detailed list of characteristics to be examined 

including tests to be performed. 

(2) Sampling plan/size. 

(3) Reclassification instructions of materiel to be inspected or 

identified. 

(4) Request for samples. 

(5) Requested laboratory to which test samples are to be shipped (The 

PVP office may determine that testing should be done at a different 

location) and any special shipping instructions. 

(6) Contract number. 

(7) Manufacturer. 

(8) Lot, batch, emulsion, model or serial number. 

(9) Required data. 

d. For Military Service-owned materiel, DLA ICPs should send requests for retail stock 

screening or send ALERTS of notifications about defective, or potentially defective, 

materiel to the Military Service Screening Point (see DLAD 4155.24, Product Quality 

Deficiency Report Program). For retail stock screening, or when simple visual 

inspections are required at DLA Depots, request that inspection results be reported as 

follows: When nonconformances are found as a result of the special inspection, require 

the results to be reported on a DD Form 1225, Storage Quality Control Report. When the 

results of the special inspection are: 
(a) No nonconformances in the stock were found, or 

(b) The inspection could not be performed, (e.g., no stock on-hand), require the 

correspondence requesting the inspection to be annotated as such and returned directly to 

the Quality Assurance specialist/professional who requested the inspection. 

e. Review and evaluate special inspection action results and provide the appropriate 

action personnel (e.g., Contracting, Stock Control, storage activity, or discrepancy report 

originator, as applicable) with comprehensive usage or disposition instructions. 

f. Update technical data, CTDF, and item and contractor quality history file with 

intelligence gained through special inspection actions. 

g. Update applicable storage standards where necessary, based on intelligence gained 

through special inspection actions. 

h. When inspection results indicate a need for specification revision, forward copies of all 

pertinent information to the SPA, through the applicable ICP review activity, with a 

request for revision of the specification as needed or indicated. 

37. QUALITY AUDIT. These are technical inspections of DLA-materiel that are more 

extensive than special inspections and are used to check the quality of products in special 

circumstances, e.g. new contractor(s), problem contractor(s), new item(s), CM/UPS 

disclosures, and allegations of adverse quality and reliability. Where special inspections 

typically involve only one or two characteristics, Quality Audits usually involve many or 

all characteristics of an item. To have a quality audit performed, ICP personnel 

responsible for quality should request the ICP Product Verification Office to arrange for 

the inspection/testing. 

a. Before requesting a quality audit, personnel responsible for quality should perform the 

following: 

(1) Review the contract documents including all modifications 

affecting the product and technical data. 

(2) Obtain and review referenced data not in the official contract folder. 

Use local procedures for requesting data from the ICP technical 

personnel, or from automated systems. 

(3) Review the complete package of contract documents and technical 

data for adequacy in accordance with FAR, DFARS, DLAD 4105.1, 

and DLAD 4155.2 provisions to assure descriptions of purchased 

products are adequate for technical inspection of the item purchased. 

FAR, DFARS, and DLAR 4105.1, section 46.202 provide criteria for 

appropriate contract quality requirements. Other factors for 

consideration, where appropriate, include the criticality of item 

application, destination of shipments, specified place of inspection and 

acceptance, and requirements for verification testing. When contractor 

sampling inspection is authorized, contracts must include appropriate 

sampling criteria such as sample size and inspection level. The 

availability of only manufacturer's name and part number will be 

reported to the ICP technical personnel for potential technical data 

acquisition. Pay particular attention to contract quality requirements 

and packaging instructions to assure that requirements are appropriate 

for the products being procured. 
(4) Approved waivers and deviations will be noted and, if repetitive, 

recommend appropriate specification changes to the cognizant 

technical personnel and annotate quality history files. 

(5) When needed, select product characteristics to be inspected by the 

auditor. Instruct the auditors concerning the technical inspection 

characteristics and quantity of items to be inspected. 

b. Evaluate the audit inspection results. Ambiguities concerning inspection results will be 

resolved through the PVP Office. 

(1) Changes to technical packaging requirements, suspected duplicate 

NSNs, and unreasonable pricing suggested by the audit will be 

evaluated and forwarded to the applicable technical personnel. 

(2) Evaluate any substandard items and validate them if necessary. 

(3) If the audit activity did not do so, prepare a PQDR on the 

substandard and forward a copy to the ICP Focal Point to be entered 

into the CDCS as a document-type 5. Investigate the PQDR in 

accordance with chapter 28 of this instruction. 

(4) Responses on completed PQDRs, will be provided to the Product 

Verification Office and the Depot Quality elements who reported the 

substandard. 

38. TECHNICAL SUPPORT. The ICPs' Quality Assurance and Technical 

Operations/Engineering personnel perform support functions for the Supply, Contracting, 

and Engineering missions. The functional personnel work together closely to assure that 

consistent and appropriate support is provided. 

a. DLAR 3200.1 provides the policy and procedures for DLA to obtain engineering 

support from the Military Services on DLA managed items. DLA Form 339, Request for 

Engineering Support, is the vehicle for formally communicating with the ESA. 

b. The ICP's technical element is the ICP's focal point for all engineering support requests 

to the ESA that pertain to the technical requirements of an item. 

c. When only Quality Assurance aspects are involved, personnel performing Quality 

Assurance functions may contact and work directly with the Military Service/ESA for the 

following: 

(1) Requests for input, guidance, clarification, or reconsideration of 

ESA-identified/requested Quality requirements, i.e., QA provisions in 

the Technical Data Package, first article and other tests, sampling 

criteria, mandatory inspections, critical quality characteristics based on 

application, and classification of quality characteristics. 

(2) Discussion of Contractor Requests for Deviations/Waivers of 

nonconforming materiel. 

(3) When Military Service specifications are involved, documentation 

concerning additions, deletions, or changes must be submitted to the 

SPA. If the recommended change is applicable to the technical 

requirement sections of the specification, the request will be submitted 

to the ICP technical liaison point element for evaluation/action. If the 

recommended change is applicable only to QA Provisions, personnel 
performing Quality Assurance functions shall submit the 

recommendation directly to the SPA. 

d. Personnel performing Quality Assurance functions will: 

(1) Provide support to the ICP's technical element and to Military 

Service ESAs/SPAs, as requested or as needed, on Quality related 

issues. This includes: Quality history information on items and 

contractors, information on determinations of contract quality 

requirements, quality aspects of alternate offers, and recommendations 

for item technical improvement. 

(2) Obtain technical assistance from the ICP technical personnel, 

whenever assistance is needed. This includes, but is not limited to, 

review of waivers and deviations for nonconforming materiel and the 

determination of characteristics for First Article tests. 

(3) Submit requests DLA Form 339, to the ICP technical element, 

when recommending changes to, or requesting engineering support on, 

item technical requirements. The request will contain sufficient and 

quantified technical background, inspection data, test results, etc., to 

provide proper evaluation. Complete information and justification will 

be provided. 

(4) Submit DD Form 1426 directly to the SPA when making 

recommendations on quality assurance aspects of Military Service 

specifications. A copy of the recommendation shall be provided to the 

ICP element responsible for standardization documents. 

(5) Submit requests/DD Form 1426 to the ICP element responsible for 

standardization documents when making recommendations about 

technical requirements of Military Service specifications. 

39. QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST (QPL) 

a. A QPL is a document that identifies the product specification, manufacturer or 

distributor, part or model number or trade name, place of manufacture, and the test report 

number. It should be noted that in cases where a manufacturer has more than one 

manufacturing plant, the product qualification applies only to the plant which produced 

the sample examined, tested, and approved. 

b. DoD 4120.3-M identifies the purpose of qualification. In part, it states the purpose of 

qualification is to provide a means of relieving quality conformance inspection of long, 

complex, or expensive tests prior to and independent of any contracting action. SPAs 

may issue a QPL requirement when: 

(1) Tests to determine conformance of a product to a specification will 

exceed 30 days. 

(2) Quality verification requires special equipment not commonly 

available. 

(3) The specification covers life survival or emergency lifesaving 

equipment. 
(4) The application is critical; failure of the part or equipment would 

jeopardize successful completion of the mission or pose a significant 

risk to life or property. 

c. In order to retain qualification approval of products, one of the following actions is 

required: 

(1) Certification by the manufacturer. 

(2) Periodic feedback of test data. 

(3) Complete re-qualification testing. 

d. Personnel responsible for Quality functions will review QPL specification 

requirements as required by DoD 4120.3-M and as required in the course of normal QA 

support actions. The primary purpose of this review will be to see that the QPL is current 

and lists only those manufacturers whose quality history indicates the capability to 

produce a quality product. 

(1) When reviewing a QPL requirement, QA personnel will consider 

the possibility that a QPL may no longer be required as advances in 

manufacturing techniques and quality control methods or 

improvements in testing methods and equipment may have eliminated 

the need for qualification. Review of the need for a QPL should be 

consistent with DLAD 4125.2 and should include: 

(a) Time required for testing. 

(b) Cost of verification testing. 

(c) Possibility of using first article tests in lieu of qualification tests when specified tests 

are the same as verification and acceptance tests. 

(d) Improvement in testing methods and techniques enabling the use of alternate tests for 

verification which do not require special test equipment. 

(2) When the person responsible for QA determines that a QPL is no 

longer required, a recommendation will be prepared with supporting 

justification for cancellation of the QPL requirement. 

Recommendations will be forwarded to the SPA. Only the SPA or 

designated agent can make changes to an existing QPL. The following 

are examples of conditions that should generate a recommendation for 

deletion of a manufacturer's product from a QPL. 

(a) Quality history shows the product offered by the manufacturer does not meet 

specification requirements. 

(b) The manufacturer has discontinued manufacture of the product. 

(c) The manufacturer has requested his product be removed from the QPL. 

(d) The conditions under which qualification was granted have been violated. 

(e) The product is that of a contractor, firm, or individual whose name appears on the 

Consolidated List of Debarred, Suspended and Ineligible Contractors. 
(3) When QA support actions reveal a manufacturer's product should be 

considered for addition to a QPL, the QA person will provide a 

recommendation for addition to the SPA with supporting justification. 

Additions often occur when a manufacturer's product successfully 

meets first article requirements that duplicate QPL requirements. 

(4) Requests for waiver of a qualification requirement can only be 

approved by the SPA and it should be understood that a waiver of 

qualification nullifies the requirement for qualification, unless an 

emergency condition exists. Therefore, all requests for waiver of a 

qualification requirement will be documented and submitted to the SPA 

for approval. When this situation arises, a review should be made to 

determine the need for the QPL requirement and, if appropriate, 

recommendations forwarded to the SPA to preclude future suspension 

of purchase requests. 

(5) QA personnel must remember that the fact a product has been 

examined, tested, and placed on a QPL signifies the manufacturer did 

make a product which met specification requirements at the time of 

qualification. Inclusion on a QPL does not in any way relieve the 

supplier of his contractual obligation to deliver items meeting all 

specification requirements and does not guarantee acceptability under a 

contract. Qualification does not constitute waiver of the requirement for 

either in-process or other verification inspection or the requirement for 

the manufacturer to maintain a QA system acceptable to the 

Government. On the other hand, Qualification along with a good 

quality history on the item is an indicator that the Contractor has an 

adequate quality system and may affect decisions regarding quality 

requirements and the need for Source inspection. 

40. POST AWARD TESTING 

a. Laboratory testing/inspection is a fundamental element of an effective quality and 

reliability program to accomplish the following objectives: 

(1) Verify product compliance with contract technical requirements. 

(2) Validate certificates (i.e., CoC and CoQC) furnished by contractors. 

(3) Verify the accuracy and validity of contractor-furnished test data. 

(4) Monitor the quality of purchased or repaired items entering the 

DLA supply system. 

(5) Resolve contractual disputes and support legal actions. 

(6) Monitor the quality of materiel in storage to assure that 

unserviceable items are not continued in issuable stocks and that 

serviceable items are not disposed of prematurely. 

(7) Determine whether materiel provided is counterfeit or an 

unauthorized product substitution. 

(8) Support First Article tests. 

(9) Arrange for testing materiel on DCMC administered contracts when 

requested by DCMC QARs/ICP personnel responsible for quality. 
(10) Monitor the quality of customer returns to assure that only 

serviceable items are returned to stock for issue. 

(11) Investigate and resolve CDCs. 

(12) Detect manufacturing and design deficiencies. Provide data for 

evaluation of materiel condition and determination of actions necessary 

to make items serviceable before they are placed in issuable stock. 

(13) Obtain a Metric of the Quality Level of items or classes of items. 

b. Each ICP has a Product Verification Program (PVP) office that has been established to 

support laboratory testing and inspection. The PVP office has the responsibility to 

arrange for random and directed testing on DLA-owned materiel. It is mandatory for ICP 

personnel responsible for quality to use the PVP to make testing arrangements of all 

testing/inspections that occur after acceptance of an item. The PVP office also assists in 

the arrangements for testing/inspection of items before acceptance. The PVP Office 

maintains a listing of sources for necessary laboratory testing. They have Blanket 

Purchase Agreements (BPAs) that can be used for acquiring test services from 

commercial laboratories and Inter-service Support Agreements that are used for 

laboratory testing requirements from the Military Services or other Government 

laboratories. 

c. ICP personnel responsible for quality will: 

(1) Plan and determine ICP requirements for laboratory testing for their 

items. (This does not include the determination of random or directed 

testing that is performed by the PVP office) 

(2) Place necessary testing requirements in contracts. See Chapter 13 

for contract testing requirements. 

(3) Develop Test Plans/Projects. Test Plans should be developed for 

items that are determined to need laboratory testing. Test Plans will 

include, as a minimum: Headers with the item nomenclature, project 

number, NSN, sample quantity, and contract number; the Schedule to 

include testing to be performed by the test laboratory (i.e., sample 

verification, visual inspection, plating inspection, and dimensional, 

physical and chemical tests) (for those items requiring destructive 

testing, the test which destroys the item will be referenced last on the 

Test Plan); Supplemental Information will indicate the format for 

reporting of test results, a point of contact name/phone; and specific 

notes/instructions for disposition of test samples. 

(a) For those items where the PVP Office or Product Testing Centers (PTCs) will develop 

the Test Plans, the ICPs will provide the necessary technical data to the test plan 

developer. 

(b) The ICPs will review/approve all Test Plans developed by the Depots. 

(4) Provide guidance for laboratory testing to storage activities for 

items designated in DLAR 4155.37, Materiel Quality Control Storage 

Standards. Guidance will separately identify tests that should be 

performed by the storage activity and tests that must be performed by a 

testing laboratory. Laboratory testing guidance will include: 
(a) Criteria for determining the need for tests, testing frequency, and the specific tests to 

be performed. 

(b) Sampling inspection instructions, e.g., method of sample selection, and AQLs. 

(c) Designated test laboratory(ies) and the method of requesting tests and test reports, 

when applicable. 

(d) Instructions for distribution of requests for testing. 

(e) Instructions for distribution of test results. 

(f) Other guidance necessary to assure correct submission, processing, and use of 

laboratory testing, and test results. 

(5) Include meaningful laboratory test results in quality history files 

and use these data in the evaluation of item and contractor 

performance. Laboratory testing information should be included in the 

Quality Evaluation Program (QEP) in the "Special QA Data" field. 

Adjustments to the degree and frequency of laboratory testing will be 

made as indicated by the quality history files. Adjustments will be 

made to contract requirements (through recommendation of contract 

modifications to the PCO), future solicitation requirements, and 

guidance given to storage activities, as appropriate. 

(6) Investigation of testing failures reported to the ICP person 

responsible for quality by the PVP office (through either random or 

directed testing) shall be done in accordance with Customer/depot 

Complaints procedures described in Chapter 28 of this instruction. 

41. QUALITY HISTORY 

a. Use of Quality history data is a primary tool for QA personnel. It provides the basic 

source of backup for QA actions. Therefore, it is essential that all quality history data be 

maintained in a manner which provides for timely, complete, and accurate retrieval. The 

systematic use of quality history data should provide QA personnel with the necessary 

information to make equitable and competent decisions. 

b. Personnel responsible to perform quality functions must establish an effective system 

to collect, maintain, analyze, and use quality history in support of the DLA contracting 

and logistics mission to help assure the material procured by DLA and received by 

customers is the requisite quality intended. Personnel shall use the Quality Evaluation 

Program (QEP), if it is available at their ICP, and guidance in paragraph 42 of this 

manual, to collect, maintain, and access quality history information. 

c. Three basic types of Quality history data: by contractor, by item, and by specification, 

shall be maintained by personnel responsible for quality assurance. 

(1) Contractor Quality History Data Files. The data will consist 

primarily of records of negative/unsatisfactory contractor quality 

performance. Significant data reflecting satisfactory performance, if 

available, may also be maintained. There is no need to routinely keep 

data on all lots (shipments of conforming products), however this 

option may be used if there is significant reason to do so. The data will 

be maintained in contractor sequence either alphabetically or by CAGE 
Code. As a minimum, the record will reflect contractor and 

contract/solicitation identity, a description of the quality problem, and a 

cross-reference by NSN to item quality history data. The data 

maintained in the contractor quality history data file or indicated as 

available and cross-referenced in either the item or specification quality 

history data files will include: 

(a) First articles 

(b) Preaward surveys. 

(c) Postaward conferences, QSRs, and QSMVs. 

(d) Product waivers and deviations (Nonconformances). 

(e) Special QA actions (such as suspensions of CQA actions at contractor plants by CAS 

organizations, the issuance of the Defense Quality Excellence Award to a contractor, the 

listings of the ASL, Qualified Products List (QPL), serious Quality Problem Reports, 

DLA Quality Alert List, or other contractor specific lists). 

(f) QALIs. 

(g) Customer/depot product quality and packaging discrepancies (PQDRs, SDRs, DD 

Forms 1225 or DLA Quality Audit Reports of Nonconformances). 

(2) Item Quality History Data File. These data will be in NSN sequence 

and include records of negative/unsatisfactory quality history. Pertinent 

records of positive/satisfactory item quality history data may also be 

maintained. The data will include a copy of quality complaints, PID, 

technical data, QAPs, and other data that reflect an unsatisfactory or 

negative item quality history. 

(3) Specification Quality History Data File. The data will be in 

specification number sequence. A copy of the specification with a 

cross-reference to the item(s) covered by the specification will be 

included. The data will include or reference records contained in the 

item or contractor quality history data files that will enable the QA 

element to determine necessary improvements, revisions, or 

modifications to specifications. 

(4) Use of Quality History Data. Quality history data are used as 

sources of intelligence in making contracting QA determination and in 

the investigation and resolution of quality problems. 

(a) Contracting QA Determinations. Item quality history data will be used in the 

development of contractual documents and guidance to CAS organizations. These may be 

made more comprehensive or less demanding in scope as a result of a review of the data 

collected on previous contracting actions. A review of the item quality history data will 

be useful in supporting recommendations for: [1] Initiating, strengthening, modifying, or 

eliminating First Article inspection requirements. All recommendations will be 

coordinated with the responsible ESA/SPA as required. [2] Adjusting the CQA place of 

performance. [3] Conducting postaward conferences. [4] Conducting preaward surveys. 
[5] Developing, modifying, or not using QALIs. [6] Use of verification testing. [7] 

Performing special inspection actions. 

(b) Contractor quality history data are used to aid the Contracting Officer in 

determinations of responsibility and by the person responsible for Quality functions in 

evaluating the application of various QA actions to specific contracts. On multiple source 

items the person responsible for Quality functions will furnish contractor quality history 

data to contracting or production personnel on an as-requested or as-required basis. The 

person responsible for Quality functions will respond to requests for contractor quality 

history data from contracting and production personnel, other ICP functional personnel, 

and Government activities. Responses should include pertinent facts regarding contractor 

quality performance with recommendations, as applicable, such as, but not limited to: [1] 

Need for or waiver of first article inspection requirements. [2] Use or nonuse of CoC 

clause. [3] Need for postaward conference and special attention areas to be discussed. [4] 

Need for preaward survey. [5] Need for issuing a QALI and pertinent contents of it. [6] 

Use of verification testing. [7] Removal or inclusion of contractors on QPLs. [8] 

Performing Special inspection actions. 

(c) Based on contractor and item quality history data, personnel responsible for Quality 

functions will notify the contracting element and other interested Government activities 

of unsatisfactory contractor quality conditions as they are generated. The purpose of this 

notification shall be either to initiate recovery action against the contractor or to initiate 

action to preclude recurrence of the unsatisfactory condition. Such notification will be 

accomplished manually or through automated means as existing procedures and the 

circumstances warrant. Specific recommendations for corrective action should 

accompany this notification. 

(d) Investigation and Resolution of Quality Problems. [1) Quality problems can be 

identified to either a product deficiency, contractor deficiency, or a logistics system 

deficiency. A given quality problem may be caused by one or a combination of these 

reasons. Whatever the cause(s), personnel responsible for quality functions are the focal 

point(s) for the investigation and resolution of product quality problems. Quality history 

data provide personnel with documented evidence of the cause(s) of past quality 

problems and the resolution of these problems. These data can be utilized to improve 

product quality by assuring adequate contract requirements and to closely monitor those 

contractors with known quality problems. Evaluation of a contractor's overall 

performance may require consideration of the total number of purchases from a specific 

contractor or of the specific problem item from the contractor. Records of total purchases 

from a specific contractor or item stock number normally are maintained by Contracting 

Officers for the latest 2-year period and may be obtained when needed. When such data 

are obtained, copies will be added to the appropriate history data and considered with the 

negative history in other actions. [2] Personnel responsible for Quality functions will 

utilize quality history data to accomplish their responsibilities in determining the cause(s) 

of quality problems and in providing substantiating evidence for 

guidance/recommendations to initiate corrective action. Use of the quality history data 

will include, but is not limited to, a source for: [a] Responding to requests for 

item/contractor intelligence from PCO, CAO, or other appropriate Government activities. 
[b] Evaluating QA procedures and techniques utilized for a given item and contractor for 

adequacy and as supporting evidence for improvements when existing procedures and 

techniques are determined to be inadequate. [c] Identifying contractors whose quality 

performance is deteriorating to enable notification to be provided the PCO, CAO, or 

other appropriate Government activity. Particular attention will be given to these cases 

where a quality problem developed subsequent to a favorable preaward survey. [d] 

Identifying those items whose repeated failure to meet operational requirements may 

indicate needed changes in the specification. Notification and/or recommendations shall 

be provided to the SPA. [e] Identifying problem areas in procedures throughout the 

logistics system which have a detrimental effect on quality requiring corrective action to 

be initiated. [f] Each element of quality history data represents only a part of the overall 

quality picture of an item or contractor. Therefore, each element, by itself, must be 

considered incomplete data. It is necessary to consolidate each of these actions into a 

composite picture to obtain a realistic, verified representation of an item's, contractor's, or 

specification's quality posture. 

(5) Analysis of Contractor History. When performing a quality history 

review, the following information should be considered: 

(a) Contract history. The review should include: [1] A baseline of how many contracts 

have been awarded to the contractor and how many items produced. The number of 

contracts and items is needed to compare with the number of: deficiencies the contractor 

had, waiver/deviation requests, Preawards, QSMVs, etc. For example, the significance of 

a contractor having 10 deficiencies for 500 contracts is different than the significance of 

the contractor having 10 deficiencies for 10 contracts. [2] An indication of the Quality 

requirements to which the contractor is capable of working, e.g., ISO 9002, higher-level 

requirements, versus standard inspection. [3] Determination of the type of items (item 

nomenclature) that the contractor has produced in the past for DLA. (A contractor that 

has produced one type of item in the past may not have the capability to produce a 

different item). 

(b) Preaward Survey Data. This should include a review of each previous preaward 

survey and the resulting recommendations. [1] Occurrences of negative preaward 

recommendations for QA capability and the reasons for the recommendations may 

indicate unresolved problems with the contractor. [2] Specific details of the category for 

which the preaward was conducted. (A satisfactory preaward indicating capability to 

produce a specific item should not be interpreted as an indication of the capability to 

produce a non-similar item.) [3] Determination of whether the contracting officer's action 

taken was different from the surveyor's recommendation. (Situations of urgent need may 

override negative recommendations.) [4] The date that previous Preawards were 

performed; this could indicate whether another preaward should be performed. [5] 

Unsatisfactory factors that led to unsatisfactory recommendations. These may indicate 

areas of discussion for postaward conferences or other QSMVs, need for additional 

contract quality/testing requirements, areas to be covered in a QALI, and problem areas 

for the contractor that require special action. 

(c) First Article Data. This should include a review of each previous requirement for First 

Article testing and the resulting actions taken. [1] Waivers of the previous First Article 
requirement. (Check whether the waiver was given based upon successful production of a 

similar item.) [2] Any First Article failures, especially subsequent submissions and 

failures. [3] Dates indicating the time required for resubmission of First Articles. [4] 

Specific nonconformances which caused the First Article to fail may indicate areas of 

discussion for QSMVs, need for additional contract quality/testing requirements in future 

contracts, areas to be covered in a QALI, and problem areas for the contractor that 

require special action. 

(d) Postaward/QSMV Data. The review should include: [1] Any problems that cause the 

visit or any results/findings that were discovered during the visit that would indicate the 

quality status of the contractor or the item. [2] Corrective actions requested during the 

trip and the "get well" date for the corrections. [3] The date that the trips were taken. 

Recent trips provide a better indication of the current status of the contractor/item. 

(e) Quality Assurance Letters of Instructions Data. Each previous QALI should be 

reviewed. [1] Review the major surveillance actions that were required by the QALI, i.e., 

mandatory inspections, special testing, and verification of CoQC. [2] Instructions on the 

withholding of CoC and the reasons. [3] The dates of the QALIs. [4] Changes that were 

made from one contract to another. 

(f) Waiver/Deviation Data. [1] The number of Waiver/Deviations that were requested. 

Since requests are discouraged, a large number of requests may indicate intentions of the 

Contractor to perpetually deviate from the requirements or problems with the technical 

description/design of the item. [2] The specific nonconformances and any repetitive 

waivers/ deviations. [3] Previous dispositions of the Waivers/Deviations and the 

ESA/SPA rejections/approvals of the requests. 

(f) Special QA Data. [1] Existence of any corrective actions by the QAR, the dates of the 

corrective action and the dates when the corrections were made. [2] Laboratory 

test/special inspection/product audit results. [3] Special information that comes from any 

other sources, i.e., QARs, contracting officers, other purchasing offices, that may indicate 

the quality status of the contractor or item. 

(6) Quality history data will be purged periodically to prevent 

proliferation. File retention periods of up to 5 years are authorized. 

42. QUALITY EVALUATION PROGRAM (QEP) 

a. The QEP system is designed to gather data, available through the normal working 

actions of ICP personnel, enter it into a contractor and item performance history data 

base, and make the data available to contracting, technical and quality assurance 

personnel via an easily understood automated format. The QEP system automates the 

collection, maintenance, and retrieval of quality history information that is required in 

paragraph 41, Quality History, of this instruction. QEP information on quality, 

packaging, and shipping discrepancies is printed with the Purchase Request Trailer 

listings for contracting use in determining contractor responsibility, and for quality 

assurance use as specified in paragraph 41, Quality History, of this manual. The 

mechanized and small purchase systems for automated procurement use the QEP data on 

discrepancies to interrupt the automated generation of solicitations for manual review of 

the quality history. QEP collected data is retrievable through general computer 

interrogations to obtain complete information by either item or contractor. Specific 
computer interrogations for distinct types of QEP data (i.e., First Article, preaward, 

nonconformance) by item or contractor are also available. Use of this data is specified in 

paragraph 41. 

b. Personnel responsible for Quality functions perform actual on-line entry into the QEP 

system to access and maintain the QEP database. They will: 

(1) Collect data during or, as soon as possible, after completion of the 

applicable action that provides quality history data. Data is to be 

entered as soon as possible after collection. Data topics to be collected 

are: 

(a) Preaward Survey: Personnel responsible for Quality functions shall collect and enter 

the QA capability data field information whenever information is available, e.g., review 

of Preaward Survey Report, completion of preaward, QSMV, waiver of preaward survey, 

report from QAR. The Contracting and Production elements may be entering preaward 

survey data. A new, separate preaward survey record will be entered for each preaward 

survey that is performed. The QEP verb "SQEA" should be used for new records and the 

verb "SQEP" should be used to update existing records. Specific procedures are as 

follows: [1] When a solicitation number is involved, enter the National Stock Number 

(NSN), the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and the Solicitation 

Number (SN) in the Procurement Instrument Identification Number (PIIN) field. Enter 

the 13 character SN and 0001 to register this information as the first PAS. If a second 

subsequent PAS is performed, enter the same NSN, CAGE, SN and 0002 to register it as 

the second PAS, and so forth. [2] When a purchase request number is involved, enter the 

NSN, the CAGE code and the Purchase Request Identification Number (PRIN) in the 

PIIN field. Enter the 14 character PRIN and 001 to register this information as the first 

PAS. If a second subsequent PAS is performed, enter the same NSN, CAGE, PRIN, and 

002 to register it as the second PAS, and so forth. [3] If a PAS factor was not investigated 

during the first PAS, but done at a later date, enter this information through the verb 

SQEP as part of the first PAS record. Enter the date and the organization that performed 

this PAS factor on the proper factor line, e.g., Financial Capability, Production 

Capability, and Quality Assurance Capability. [4] When the award is made, and the 

contract number is input, the system will allow only one input of the PIIN with the same 

NSN and CAGE code. When the PIIN is input on the first preaward survey record, the 

additional preaward numbers should be input in the comments section of block 11G, 

Other, so inquiries to those preaward surveys can be made. 

(b) Postaward Conferences/Quality System Review/Quality System Management 

Reviews: Personnel responsible for Quality functions shall collect and enter all data as 

specified on the applicable input form/screen upon completion of travel and upon receipt 

of follow-on information relating to the QSMV. Enter significant results/findings for each 

postaward or QSMV emphasizing those requiring corrective action; enter "get well date" 

when known. 

(c) First Article Results: Personnel responsible for Quality functions shall collect and 

enter all data as specified on the applicable input form/screen. The data will normally be 

collected upon review of the First Article Test Report. However, there may be other 

opportunities for collecting the data, e.g., completion of a First Article, QSMV, 
notification from the QAR. Contracting personnel may be providing subsequent entry if 

their decision differs in any way from the QA element's status entry. Contracting 

personnel will also be updating the comments data field to reflect their rationale. For each 

First Article Test that is conditionally approved or disapproved, enter nonconformances, 

referencing specific specification/ drawing requirements that the item failed in the First 

Article test. For each First Article test that is waived, enter the contract number under 

which the item was previously produced; indicate whether it is the same or similar item; 

indicate item nomenclature and NSN of similar items. 

(d) Nonconformances: Personnel responsible for Quality functions shall collect and enter 

all data except the PCO Action data. Data will be collected upon review of waiver 

request, notification of waiver request by the QAR, and any other times that waiver 

information is available. Contracting personnel may be entering the PCO Action data and 

will be annotating their rationale in the comments data field if their action differs from 

the QA element's recommendation. For each waiver/deviation: enter the DoD Activity 

Address Code (DoDAAC) of the activity coordinating on the waiver/ deviation; enter a 

brief description of the waiver/deviation, referencing the specific specification/drawing 

requirement involved; and enter the contractor's preventive corrective action. 

(e) Special QA Data: Personnel responsible for Quality functions shall collect and enter 

all data as specified on the applicable input form/screen. For each special QA data record, 

enter narrative data that explains the special action. Examples of special QA data are: [1] 

Corrective actions by the QAR. For each corrective action information item the date the 

corrective action method was opened and the date the corrective action method was 

closed. [2] Laboratory testing. [3] Defective Government Furnished Material (GFM) not 

reported on PQDRs. [4] Product Quality Audit information, i.e., requests for Special 

Audits, details of audits performed. NOTE: Even though PQDRs that result from 

Substandards are entered into the CDCS, details of the Substandards may be placed in 

this section. [5] Report of any information on the item or contractor by the QAR, Military 

Services, other functional elements, CM/UPS Committee, and HQ DLA/DLSC. 

(f) QA Letters of Instruction: Personnel responsible for Quality functions shall collect 

and enter all data as specified on the applicable input form/screen upon preparation of the 

QALI, review of challenges, and whenever other reviews/investigations indicate that a 

QALI is needed for future contracts. For each QALI, enter narrative data that explains the 

major issue(s) covered in the QALI. 

(g) Quality Data: Personnel responsible for Quality functions shall collect and enter all 

data as specified on the applicable input form/screen. These data shall be collected upon 

review of the contract and will indicate what actually was required by the contract 

regardless of what was requested or what appears in the CTDF. As a minimum, quality 

data shall be collected on all ICP contracts designating performance of Government CQA 

actions at source. Quality data on contracts designating CQA at destination shall be 

collected when adverse quality history has been experienced or if quality problems are 

anticipated. 

(2) QEP input forms may be used to collect the data to be entered into 

the QEP system at a later time. 
43. CONTRACTING TECHNICAL DATA FILE (CTDF). The CTDF is the automated 

system by which item and contracting information is stored and used on DLA items. The 

system contains areas that are the responsibility of personnel responsible for quality 

functions to enter and maintain for each item. To the extent possible, information in the 

CTDF should be predetermined and entered into the system in advance of contracting. 

a. Quality Assurance personnel will input the following QA Data in option N (Quality 

Guidance Data): 

(1) PIC - Place of Inspection (see paragraph 7 of this instruction). 

(2) QCC - Quality Control Code (see paragraph 6 of this instruction). 

(3) QAC - Quality Assurance Review Code. 

(4) IAM/QAP - Interim Amendment/Quality Assurance Provisions 

Code. 

(5) IAM/QAP Date 

(6) CIC - Critical Item Code 

NOTE: It is the responsibility of the Military Service ESA to determine criticality. ICP 

technical personnel enter this information as it is obtained from the Military Service ESA. 

Personnel responsible for Quality functions should review this code and recommend 

changes to the ICP technical element. Changes will not be made to this code unless the 

change has been coordinated with the ESA. 

(7) CoQC - Certificate of Quality Compliance (See paragraph 9 of this 

instruction). 

(8) LINE NR - Descriptive data pertinent to Quality Assurance aspects 

of the item. 

b. Personnel responsible for Quality functions will inform other responsible ICP 

personnel when they observe errors in other codes, or have questions regarding 

information in the CTDF. 

F. RESPONSIBILITIES 

1. Quality Assurance (QA) personnel are responsible for: 

a. Supporting the contracting and materiel management functions through assuring the 

items and services procured and delivered to DLA customers are of the requisite quality 

intended and conform to customer specified requirements. b. Endeavoring to learn other 

contracting and materiel management functions and use quality assurance tools at their 

disposal to assist other areas to improve their processes. 

2. Career Development and Commodity Training. 

a. Supervisors of Quality Assurance personnel are responsible for assuring that an IDP is 

established for each QA employee that provides training as needed. b. QA personnel are 

responsible for completing assigned training and developmental assignments as required. 
3. Quality Day representatives are responsible for: 

a. Participating in Quality Day and assigned working groups to resolve specific problems. 

b. Hosting meetings when requested and carrying out administrative duties as required. 

4. Quality Assurance Provisions (QAPs). QA personnel are responsible for: 

a. Developing QAPs for new items entering the inventory and for items transferred from 

the Military Services/GSA to DLA for management. b. Revising existing QAPs on 

current DLA managed items whenever they are found to be inadequate. c. Providing 

QAP information to appropriate contracting elements through documents of automated 

systems. 

5. Packaging Quality Assurance Requirements. QA personnel are responsible for: 

a. Developing definitive Quality Assurance requirements for packaging. b. Assuring that 

definitive quality assurance requirements for packaging are included in ICP contracts. 

6. Contract Quality Requirements. QA personnel are responsible for: 

a. Selecting or developing appropriate quality assurance requirements and making 

recommendations for inclusion of specific contract quality clauses in ICP contracts. b. 

Reviewing requests for waiver of contract requirements 

7. Place of Performance of Government CQA. QA personnel are responsible for: 

a. Determining the place (e.g., source or destination) where the Government will perform 

CQA actions on ICP contracts. b. Determining the place (e.g., source or destination) 

where the Government will perform acceptance actions on ICP contracts. 

8. Certificate of Conformance. QA personnel are responsible for assisting the Contracting 

Officer in determining whether the CoC Clause should be used in ICP contracts involving 

specific contractors and/or items. 

9. Certificate of Quality Conformance (CoQC). QA personnel are responsible for 

assisting the Contracting Officer in determining whether the CoQC Clause should be 

used in ICP contracts involving specific contractors and/or items. 

10. Manufacturing Process Controls. QA personnel are responsible for assisting the 

Contracting Officer in determining whether the Manufacturing Process Control Clause 

should be used in ICP contracts involving specific contractors and/or items. 

11. Bid Samples. QA personnel are responsible for: 

a. Determining the requirement for bid samples and including appropriate descriptive 

requirements for bid samples in ICP contracts. b. Determining whether bid samples may 

be waived for specific contractors or procurements. 

12. First Article Requirements. QA personnel are responsible for: 
a. Furnishing recommendations and justification to the Contracting Officer for including 

a First Article requirement in ICP contracts. b. Developing appropriate First Article 

requirements and provisions. c. Evaluating requests for waiver of First Article 

requirements. d. Evaluating results of First Article tests and inspections. 

13. Testing Requirements. QA personnel are responsible for determining testing 

requirements and making recommendations for inclusion of specific tests in ICP 

contracts. 

14. Metrology and Calibration. QA personnel are responsible for determining calibration 

requirements and making recommendations for inclusion of SPC QAPs in ICP contracts. 

15. QA personnel are responsible for determining warranty requirements and making 

recommendations for inclusion of warranties in ICP contracts. 

16. Statistical Process Control (SPC). QA personnel are responsible for determining SPC 

requirements and making recommendations for their inclusion in ICP contracts. 

17. QA personnel are responsible for ensuring that ICP contracts contain the necessary 

sampling procedures to ensure an acceptable product. 

18. Preaward Acquisition Support. QA personnel are responsible for supporting the 

preaward contracting mission by providing support to the Contracting Officer and other 

Government activities, e.g., DCMC during the preaward process. 

19. Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests (MIPRs) QA personnel are responsible 

for performing quality assurance functions in the processing of MIPRs. 

20. Preaward Surveys. QA personnel are responsible for performing Preaward Survey 

actions. 

21. Acquisition Plans and Associated Solicitations. QA personnel are responsible for 

providing Quality Assurance support to provisioning planning, acquisition planning and 

item transfers. 

22. Prime Vendor and Performance-based Service Contracting (PBSC). QA personnel are 

responsible for developing or reviewing quality assurance aspects of Performance Work 

Statements (PWS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans for ICP service contracts. 

23. Postaward Acquisition Support. QA personnel are responsible for supporting the 

postaward contracting mission by providing support on quality and reliability issues to 

the Contracting Officer and other Government activities, e.g., DCMC, during the 

postaward process. 

24. Contract Review. QA personnel are responsible for performing contract review. 

25. Postaward Orientation Conference. QA personnel are responsible for conducting or 

attending Postaward conferences as needed. 
26. Quality Assurance Letters of Instruction (QALIs). QA personnel are responsible for 

issuing QALIs that provide quality history and designate specific inspections, 

verification, or tests, to be conducted by the CAO, or the receiving point. 

27. Deviations and Waivers. QA personnel are responsible for evaluating contractor 

requests for product deviations and product waivers, and recommending approval or 

disapproval of the request. 

28. Product Quality deficiency Reports (PQDRs) and other Customer Depot Complaints. 

For discrepancy/deficiency reports, ICPs shall assign appropriate personnel to perform 

the following responsibilities: 

a. An Originating Point to write PQDRs on any nonconforming items found by ICP, or 

other personnel that report the nonconforming item to the ICP outside of the PQDR 

process, whenever knowledge of the nonconformance is known (e.g., during trips to 

contractor plants, special inspections, lab tests, and receipt of product quality audit 

reports). b. A Focal Point to receive reports of all complaints (i.e., SDRs/PQDRs/TDRs), 

provide computer system entry of the complaints, and distribute the complaints to the 

appropriate action office for investigation, resolution, and response. c. An Action Point 

responsible for: 

(1) Determining the need for, and scope of, investigations, and 

investigating, resolving, and responding to customer complaints in a 

timely and adequate manner. 

(2) Determining scope of, and taking necessary corrective action on, 

the reported defective item(s). 

(3) Determining scope of, and taking necessary corrective action on, 

the cause of the defect to preclude recurrence of the deficiency. 

(4) Issuing immediate notification to using components if the 

deficiency warrants notification. 

(5) Providing disposition instructions (furnished by ICP supply or 

contracting personnel) and credit allowance in final responses to the 

customer. 

(6) Coordinating with ESAs, SPAs, users, inspection activities, and ICP 

elements, as applicable. 

(7) Analyzing and evaluating deficiency reports to detect trends of poor 

quality materiel, identify contractors that provide deficient materiel, 

and share applicable quality history data with other elements and 

components. 

29. Customer/Depot Complaint E-Mail 

a. The ICP Focal Point is responsible for receiving and controlling E-Mail complaints 

transmitted to them and forwarding them to appropriate Action Points. b. The ICP 

Control Point is responsible for periodically analyzing the processes and results of E-Mail 

complaint transmission, to assure the E-Mail system is operating satisfactorily, and taking 
appropriate action as necessary. c. The ICP Action Points will receive and transmit EMail complaints as needed during their investigation and resolution of complaints. 

30. Customer Depot Complaint System (CDCS). ICP Focal Points, Control Points and 

Action Points will use the CDCS (if available at their ICP) to control and maintain 

customer complaint records. 

31. Quality Systems Management Visits (QSMVs). QA personnel are responsible for 

performing QSMVs and QSRs to contractor facilities, inspection activities, depots, 

supply points, prepositioned war reserve sites, laboratories, and customer installations. 

32. Allegation of Adverse Quality and Reliability Involving DLA Contracts. QA 

personnel are responsible for providing maximum support to the ICP Contracting 

Officers, item managers, and other personnel/agencies regarding investigations (e.g., 

congressional inquiry, Hotline reports, DoD Inspector General/GAO investigations, and 

letters sent directly to HQ DLA or the ICP) involving ICP products and services. 

33. Counterfeit Materiel/Unauthorized Product Substitution (CM/UPS). QA personnel are 

responsible for supporting Contracting officers and General Counsel personnel in the 

investigation and resolution of CM/UPS disclosures. 

34. Contract Data Package Recommendation/Deficiency Reports (DD Forms 1716). QA 

personnel are responsible for supporting the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of any 

reported deficiencies in design or technical requirements. 

35. Supply, Storage, and Maintenance Support. QA personnel are responsible for 

supporting the DLA supply mission by providing support on quality and reliability issues 

to supply personnel (e.g., the item manager, stock control personnel), Defense Depots, 

and other Government activities. 

36. Special Inspection Actions. QA personnel are responsible for providing inspection 

criteria, information, and assistance to inspection and acceptance personnel (i.e., Depots) 

and evaluating results of Special Inspections. 

37. Quality Audit. QA personnel are responsible for submitting requests for performance 

of special product quality audits. 

38. Technical Support. QA personnel are responsible for providing Quality Assurance 

support to the ICP's supply, contracting, and Engineering missions. 

39. Qualified Products List (QPL). The ICP shall designate personnel responsible for 

supporting the QPL program. 

40. Post Award Testing. QA personnel are responsible for placing necessary testing 

requirements in contracts, developing test plans and projects, as required, requesting tests 

to be arranged by the ICP's Product Verification Manager, and evaluating test results. 

41. Quality History. QA personnel are responsible for collecting, maintaining, and 

providing contractor and item quality performance history to the Contracting Officer and 

other Government personnel, as required. 
G. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This publication is effective immediately. 

H. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 

1. ICPs shall collect and analyze test and inspection results and materiel user feedback 

(PQDRs) to measure the quality level of items, groups of items, and the overall quality 

level of materiel for the ICP. This includes: 

a. Random test/inspection results. Number of NSN random test failures divided by the 

total number of random NSN tests. b. Directed test/inspection results. Number of NSN 

failures in directed tests divided by the total number of NSN directed tests. c. PQDRs 

received. Number and dollar value of PQDRs received. (These measurements are 

included in the EIS, and are required to be reported in the RCS DLA(M)26(C-FOCA)MIN, Management Data Report, data elements 279B1 and 279M1). 

2. ICPs shall collect and analyze data on contractors' performance to measure the 

effectiveness of contractor selection and the quality level of the contractor base. 

Suggested measures are: 

a. Level of contractor rating. Summary ratings can be obtained from the Automated Best 

Value Method (ABVM) data base and analyzed. b. Pareto analysis of contractors with 

deficiencies. c. First article test results by contractor. Number of requests, approvals, 

disapprovals and conditional approvals. d. Product Waivers/Deviations. Details of 

Waivers and Deviations; number of repeat requests for, and repeat approvals of, Waivers 

and Deviations for nonconforming supplies. A copy of the ICP's waiver/deviation 

database shall be submitted to reach HQ DLA, ATTN: DCMC-OF, by the 15th calendar 

day following the end of each quarter. This reporting requirement has been assigned 

Report Control Symbol, RCS DLA(Q)2428(E-AQ). 

3. ICPs may collect and analyze data generated by Government Quality Assurance 

actions to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of quality actions, as determined 

necessary by the ICP managers assigned responsibility for the item/groups of items. 

Suggested measures are: 

a. Preaward Actions. Quantity and time to perform quality assurance preaward actions 

such as logistic transfer reviews, purchase request (PR), Missing Data Work List 

(MDWL) reviews, and contractor history reviews. b. Quality Systems Management Visits 

(QSMVs). Number and type (pre/post-award, first article, technical, quality problem) of 

visits. c. Quality Assurance Letters of Instruction. Number of QALIs issued, number of 

challenges received, and number of amended QALIs issued. d. Product 

Waivers/Deviations. Number of recommendations for approval and disapproval. e. 

PQDRs on hand. Number of PQDRs received but not yet resolved. (This measurement is 

included in the Executive Information System (EIS) and is required to be reported in the 

RCS DLA(M)26(C-FO-CA)MIN, Management Data Report, data element 279D1). Age 

of PQDRs on hand also measures the efficiency of quality actions. f. Time to complete 

PQDRs. Total days required to complete PQDRs divided by total number of completed 
PQDRs. (This measurement is included in the Executive Information System (EIS), and 

is required to be reported in the RCS DLA(M)26(C-FO-CA)MIN, Management Data 

Report, data element 279G1). 

4. Forms used by ICP personnel performing Quality Assurance functions. 

a. Standard Form (SF)368, Product Quality Deficiency Report b. DD Form 448, Military 

Interdepartmental Purchase Request c. DD Form 1716, Contract Data Package 

Recommendation/Deficiency Report. d. DD Form 1225, Storage Quality Control Report. 

e. DD Form 2332, Product Quality Deficiency Report Exhibit Tag f. DLA Form 1227, 

Product Quality Deficiency Investigation Report. g. DLA Form 339, Request for 

Engineering Support. h. DD Form 1426, Standardization Document Improvement 

Proposal 

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR 

NORMAN B. HODGES III 

Colonel, USA 

Headquarters Complex Commandant 

COORDINATION: CAHS, DLSC-POA, DCMC-OG DSCP, DESC, DISC, DSCR, 

DSCC