GLOBAL PURCHASING AND SUPPLY CHAIN

POTENTIAL SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AUDIT (PSA)

Version 9 Released Jan 2012

SUPPLIER NAME:
DUNS:
SUPPLIER LOCATION:
DATE OF AUDIT:
AUDITORS NAME(S):
LEAD AUDITOR PHONE AND EMAIL:

GLOBAL PURCHASING AND SUPPLY CHAIN

POTENTIAL SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AUDIT (PS
Version 9 Released Jan 2012
SUPPLIER NAME:

DUNS:

SUPPLIER LOCATION:

DATE OF AUDIT:

AUDITORS NAME(S):

LEAD AUDITOR PHONE AND EMAIL:

PEOPLE / HR
Position

Name

Phone Number

Months in Position

CEO / President
QA MANAGER
PLANT MANAGER
PROD. CONTROL
PROCESS ENGR
PRODUCT ENGR
SALES
SERVICE / SHIPPING
MATERIAL MGMT
OTHER

Number of engineers responsible to quality at the facility?

Number of engineers responsible to production at the facility?

Number of engineers responsible to R&D at the facility?

Number of individuals dedicated to Aftersales service at the facility?

Total

5 Number of Employees at facility?

PSA Version 9

Hourly

GLOBAL PURCHASING AND SUPPLY CHAIN

POTENTIAL SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AUDIT (PS
Version 9 Released Jan 2012
6 Average employee seniority (in years)?
7 Employee turnover rate (percentage)?

Union Representation?

How many shifts does the plant normally work?

Shifts

9a

How many days does the plant normally work?

Days

10

Is local manpower available to support increased business?

No

Yes

If Yes, Expiration Date:

No

Yes

FACILITIES
Total

Production

11
12
13

Current plant utilization (percentage)?

%
How much can utilization be increased by adding manpower only (percentage)?

14

Impact of quoted business on plant utilization (percentage)?

15
16

Implementation plan available for increased production?

Capacity utilization for next 5 years:
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5

17

What is the standard lead time for product:

Lead Time for PPAP
Lead Time for Product Delivery

18

What is the supplier's/facility's current PPM (Parts per Million)?

No

If Yes, explain:

Yes

PPM

Note: PPM = [(return+scrapped+sorts+reworks) x 1,000,000]/total volume

19

Do you meet GM's standards for fire safety in your warehouses?

20

Does the supplier/facility build their own tools?

No

Yes

21

Does the supplier/facility refurbish tools in-house?

No

Yes

22

Does the supplier/facility have the capacity to build?

No

Yes

23

Does the supplier/facility have TS16949 Certificate?

No

Yes

24

If no TS16949 certificate, status of TS planned?

No

Yes

No

Yes

If Yes, what percentage:

When?_______________________S

COMMERCIAL
25
26

How long has the supplier been in the business that they are quoting?
What type of products does the supplier/facility manufacture?
PSA Version 9

Years

GLOBAL PURCHASING AND SUPPLY CHAIN

POTENTIAL SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AUDIT (PS
Version 9 Released Jan 2012
27
28

Specify other manufacturing location available for type of product:

Is there any pending litigation (Legal actions) against the supplier/facility?
No

29

If Yes, explain:

Yes

If Yes, explain:

Is the company anticipating a change in ownership in the next 3 years?

No

32

Yes

Has the supplier/facility been cited and/or fined for failure to comply with any state/federal regulations and/or st
No

31

If Yes, explain:

Has the supplier/facility had a judgment against them in the past 2 years?
No

30

Yes

Yes

If Yes, explain:

What is the % of Business supplying to OE and Aftersales?

OE %:

Aftersales %:

LOGISTICS
33

Does the supplier/facility currently export product?

34

Specify countries where supplier/facility is delivering orders:

35

How does the supplier/facility currently deliver product?

Rail

Truck

Ship

No

Yes

Other

Air

36

Is the supplier currently sequencing product for an assembly plant?

37

How often do you have to make premium shipments?

38

Capable of electronic data transfer (EDI)?

39

How many days of finished product inventory is on hand?

40

What is the supplier/facility current inventory management system, describe:

41

Is there more than one or two shifts of in process material in the plant?

No

Yes

No

Yes

If yes, list software and explain:

Average

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

SPO
42
43

For SPO, does the supplier have capability to ship direct to the dealer?
What type of packaging & labeling are currently utilized?
(shrink wrap, unitized box, bulk, etc.)

44

Does the facility currently have the ability to pick, pack and ship products to
GMSPO customers?
PSA Version 9

GLOBAL PURCHASING AND SUPPLY CHAIN

POTENTIAL SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AUDIT (PS
Version 9 Released Jan 2012
45

Does the facility have the ability to produce service part labels on site?

No

Yes

46

Are finished goods warehoused at this facility?

If no, where are finished goods warehoused?

No

Yes

Explain

PSA Version 9

UPPLY CHAIN
ENT AUDIT (PSA)
2012

Years at Company

E-mail Address

Management

Dedicated to the Product Line

PSA Version 9

UPPLY CHAIN
ENT AUDIT (PSA)
2012
%

Warehouse

Office

_____________________Status posted in GQTS - Supplier Certification? Yes / No

PSA Version 9

UPPLY CHAIN
ENT AUDIT (PSA)
2012

deral regulations and/or statutes in the past 2 years?

Aftersales %:

are and explain:

Target

Yes

Yes

Yes

PSA Version 9

UPPLY CHAIN
ENT AUDIT (PSA)
2012
Yes
Yes

PSA Version 9

GLOBAL PURCHASING AND SUPPLY CHAIN

POTENTIAL SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT AUDIT (PSA)
Version 9 Released Jan 2012
SUPPLIER NAME:

DUNS:

SUPPLIER LOCATION:

DATE OF AUDIT:

AUDITORS NAME(S):

LEAD AUDITOR PHONE AND EMAIL:

Top summary : Global OE / SPO High Volume Service Parts & Accessories

0.0%

Manufacturing Risk

< 25% Risk is Green, >=25% to 60% is Yellow and >=60% is Red

0.0%

Quality Risk

< 25% Risk is Green, >=25% to 58% is Yellow and >=58% is Red

0.0%

Service Risk

< 25% Risk is Green, >=25% to 55% is Yellow and >=55% is Red

0.0%

Technology Risk

< 25% Risk is Green, >=25% to 46% is Yellow and >=46% is Red

9.6%

Price Risk

< 25% Risk is Green, >=25% to 52% is Yellow and >=52% is Red

Middle summary: SPO Service Parts, Accessories & IAM Safety components - Low Volume

0.0%

Manufacturing Risk

< 30% Risk is Green, >=30% to 65% is Yellow and >=65% is Red

0.0%

Quality Risk

< 30% Risk is Green, >=30% to 63% is Yellow and >=63% is Red

0.0%

Service Risk

< 30% Risk is Green, >=30% to 60% is Yellow and >=60% is Red

0.0%

Technology Risk

< 25% Risk is Green, >=25% to 46% is Yellow and >=46% is Red

9.6%

Price Risk

< 30% Risk is Green, >=30% to 57% is Yellow and >=57% is Red

Bottom summary: SPO Service Parts, Accessories & IAM Non Safety components - Low Volume

0.0%

Manufacturing Risk

< 38% Risk is Green, >=38% to 70% is Yellow and >=70% is Red

0.0%

Quality Risk

< 38% Risk is Green, >=38% to 70% is Yellow and >=70% is Red

0.0%

Service Risk

< 30% Risk is Green, >=30% to 70% is Yellow and >=70% is Red

0.0%

Technology Risk

< 40% Risk is Green, >=40% to 70% is Yellow and >=70% is Red

9.6%

Price Risk

< 38% Risk is Green, >=38% to 70% is Yellow and >=70% is Red
TAKE-AWAYS / KEY FINDINGS / COMMENTS:

RECOMMENDED SQ TOOLS FOR FURTHER SUPPLER DEVELOPMENT:

Audits

Workshops

Process Control Plan Audit (PCPA)

PFMEA Workshop

Shop Floor Excellence Audit (SFE)

Error Proofing Workshop

Quality Systems Basics Audit (QSB)

Label Error Proofing Workshop

Functional Supplier Assessment (FSA)

5S & Visual Workplace Workshop

Torque Control Assessment

Problem Solving Workshop

Event Driven Audits

Applying SPC Tools Workshop

Supplier Launch Day Audit (SLD)

Job Set Up Error Proofing Workshop

Shutdown/Startup Audit (SD/SU)

Quality System Basics Workshop

Supplier Process Assessment Matrix (SPAM)

Drill Deep & Wide Workshop

Escalation

Management Engagement

Executive Champion Process

Top Focus

New Business Hold

Controlled Shipping Level I

Global Sourcing

Controlled Shipping Level II

334255031.xlsx

Value Stream Mapping

10 of 28
GM CONFIDENTIAL

10/21/2016

Potential Supplier Assessment

Manufacturing
Category
Manufacturing

Sub-Category

Item

Process Flow

Risk

What best describes in

process material handling?

Standardized Work

Capacity

Capability

Which kind of process flow is

followed?

Do the Standard Operation

Sheets contain appropriate
and complete information?

Are Standard Operation

Sheets easily accessible to the
team members?

What best describes operator

training?

Are Standard Operation

Sheets being followed by team
members & audited by team
leaders?

Is capacity determined
appropriately?

How will additional / new

business be addressed?

Is process capability &

performance maintained at
levels originally approved by
the customer?

Workplace
Organization

Are resources available for

calibration?

Is sufficient lights & air

12 circulation available?

13 Is shop floor organized to

provide fatigue free operating
conditions?
5S & Housekeeping

Is the work place properly

14 organized?

Are parts, tools & equipment

15 arranged in fixed location?

Safety

334255031.xlsx

Is personal safety equipment

16 provided?

Score

push
system, resulting in
System
high
0 -- WIP
Available but
& some
5
Available
appropriate are missing, or
instructions
10 - No instructions
no visual aids
available
05 - -Not
Easy
to Access
(at
easy
to access
the
operation)
10
- Instructions
(at the
office or line
inaccessible
/ Operator
head)
0 -Documented
doesn't
know where
training
including follow
5
- Documented
up
training,
follow
up
10
- Nono
formal
process
0 - Regular audit is
5
- Audit isaudit result and
conducted,
conducted
action
plans
documented
10 - No
Audit
is
infrequently
0
- Appropriately
conducted
5
- Appropriately,
but
utilizing
actual
10
-Capacity
factors
are based more
calculation
method
on estimates
unacceptable
0 - Additional
Manpower
10
15 -- Additional
New required
plant
Equipment required
installation
/

Are resources available for

10 functional / durability testing?

11

Risk Rating Guideline

0 - Well organized,
structured, properly
5 - Organized, but
identified
10 - Not structured,
opportunity
for
parts
area not properly
improvement
identified
0
Piece
3 -- Single
Small Lot
Batch
Flow
5
- Large /Batch
Processing
Pull Size,

expansion
required
0
- Yes, meets
all
5 - Meets customer
requirements
requirements
but some
10
- Does not
deterioration
meet
the stipulated
0
- Resources
requirement
3
- Resources
available
within 3
available
within 8
7
- Resources
hours
hours
available
15
-Resources
within 24
hours
available
over 24
0
- Resources
hours
3
- Resources
available
within 3
7 - Resources
available
within 8
hours
10
available
within 24
hours-Resources
available
over 24
hours
0 - LUX level
and
hours
controlled air pressure
3 - Available but
maintained
5 -controlled
Needs
not
improvement
0 - Work conditions suited
to control
riskin
5
- Needergonomic
improvement
factors ergonomics & social
safety,
0 - 5S practice
comfort
followed
5 - Partial
implementation
of 5S
10
- No 5S
activity
/ cleanliness
0
- Proper
identification
5
- Proper &
location
10
- No proper
identification
& location
identification
or
but
not followed
0
- Operators are
location
provided
with
safety
5
- Safety
equipment
is not
equipment
always available to operator

10

15

10

Comments

11 of 28
GM CONFIDENTIAL

Threshold

5
10/21/2016

Potential Supplier Assessment

Quality
Category

Management

Quality

Sub-Category

Item

Score

Threshold

What best represents the suppliers

process?

Risk

0 - Simple, sequential, easy to

follow
Process Flow
3
- Relatively
good flow, but opportunities for
improvement
5 - Process flow difficult to
understand and follow

Formal process is identified to

protect pipeline supply chain (MRP,
KAN BAN, etc.) and provide safety
inventory.

Supplier demonstrates
understanding of Process Validation.

0 - Supplier has demonstrated Supply

Chain
Protection
3 - Supplier
hassystem.
supply chain protection system,
but
needs
minor
5 - Supplier hasenhancements.
supply chain protection system,
but
major
enhancements.
10 needs
- Supplier
has
no supply chain protection
plan in place.
0 - Supplier has demonstrated
understanding of Process Validation.
10 - Supplier has some Process Validation skills, but
needs major enhancements.
20 - Supplier has no Process Validation
tasks in place.

10

Supplier has Material Identification

Traceability System supported with
current data.

Tier 1 Supplier has plan on how Tier

2-3-4 suppliers will be managed.

0 - Supplier has demonstrated Material

3 - Supplier has genericSystem.
Material
Identification/Traceability
Identification/Traceability
5 - Supplier has generic System;
Material needs minor
enhancements.
Identification/Traceability
System; needs major
10
- Supplier has no Material
enhancements.
Identification/Traceability System.
0 - Supplier has strong Tier 2-3-4 management
system
and documentation.
10 - Supplier
has generic Tier 2-3-4 management

15

10

Supplier has capability on Change

Management enforcement for entire
supply chain.

Supplier utilizes formal layered audit

process on their
quality/manufacturing systems.

Supplier utilizes formal audits

focused on quality/manufacturing
systems of their suppliers.

Supplier demonstrates process for

Non-Conforming Material isolation,
removal from pipeline and plant floor.

10 Incoming Material Handling System

is present (proper tagging, material
testing, documentation).

Risk Rating Guideline

system, but needs enhancements.

15 - Supplier has generic Tier 2-3-4 management
system,
but needs
enhancements.
20
- Supplier
has major
no Tier 2-3-4
management system or experience.
0 - Supplier has demonstrated capability on Change
Management
5
- Supplier enforcement.
has capability on Change Management
enforcement,
improvement.
10
- Supplierbut
hasneeds
minimal
capability on Change
Management
15 - Supplierenforcement.
has no capability on Change
Management enforcement,
0 -Documented formal audits conducted by
3
- Documented
audits
conductedactions
and
management
with formal
immediate
corrective
reviewed
with management
- needs
minor supported
5 - Documented
formal audits
- not properly
improvement
or
conducted frequently enough - improvements
10
- No evidence a process exists or is not
required
supported properly
0 - Documented formal audits conducted by
"supplier quality", reviewed with their management
with- immediate
corrective
actions.
5
Documented
formal audits
conducted and reviewed
10
- Documented- formal
properly
with management
needs audits
minor- not
improvement
supported or conducted frequently enough improvements
required
15
- No evidence
a process exists or is not
supported properly
0 - Supplier has extensive Non-Conforming Material
Handling
system
place.
3 - Supplier
hasin
Non-Conforming
Material Handling

10

system in place; needs minor improvements.

5 - Supplier has Non-Conforming Material Handling
system
in place;
needs
major improvements.
10
- Supplier
has
no Non-Conforming
Material Handling system in place.
0 - Supplier has extensive Incoming
Material
Handling
system in Material
place.
2
- Supplier
has Incoming
Handling
PSAminor
Versionimprovements.
9
system in place; needs

Comments

Quality
Category

Sub-Category

Item

Incoming Material
Handling System
Risk
is present (proper tagging, material
testing, documentation).

0 - Supplier has extensive

Incoming
Risk Rating Guideline
Material
Handling
system in Material
place.
2
- Supplier
has Incoming
Handling
system in place; needs minor improvements.
3 - Supplier has Incoming Material Handling
system
in place;
major improvements.
5 - Supplier
hasneeds
no Incoming
Material
Handling system in place.

PSA Version 9

Score

3
Threshold

Comments

Quality
Category

Sub-Category

Item

Risk

11 Review material identification method

used for materials in process
(tagging, labeling, and traceability
method).

12 Supplier demonstrates effective use

of PFMEA: quantifies risk, identifies
special characteristics for use in
Control Plan, takes action to reduce
RPNs; uses AIAG/QSB criteria to
calculate RPNs
Supplier demonstrates adherence to
13 control plan.

Risk Rating Guideline

0 - Supplier has extensive Material

ID/Traceability system in place
2 - Supplier has Material ID/Traceability system in
place; needs minor improvements
3 - Supplier has Material ID/Traceability system in
place;
needs major
5- Supplier
has noimprovements
Material ID/Traceability
system in place
0 - PFMEAs document full expectations are
met; process is well-deployed
5 - PFMEAs show significant compliance with
expectations; minor issues
10 - PFMEAs show significant non-compliance
with expectations; major issues
15

0 - Supplier has evidence of strong Control

Plan Adherence in place.
5 - Supplier has Control Plan adherence in place;
needs minor improvements.
15 - Supplier has Control Plan Adherence in place;
needs major improvements.
20 - Supplier has no evidence of Control Plan
adherence with current business.

10-

0 - Supplier has demonstrated excellent

levels
of quality
inspection.
3 - Supplier
has
generic quality inspection plan;
needs
minor
improvements.
5 - Supplier has generic quality inspection plan;
needs major improvements.
10 - Supplier has no quality inspection

Supplier complies with acceptable

17 measurement system analysis and
calibration techniques.

ANDON system and its application.

18

5
0

15
0

5
0

No or very poor linkage in evidence

0 - Supplier has capability of retrieving

current drawing revision.
5 - Supplier has no capability of retrieving current
drawing revision.

16 Supplier demonstrates
understanding of quality inspection
and sampling plan requirements.

Threshold

- No or very poor PFMEAs in evidence

0 - Linkage is evidenced and meet expectation

3 - Linkage shows significant compliance
with expectations; minor issues
5 - Linkage shows significant noncompliance with expectations; major issues

There is linkage between the design

record, PFMEA, Control Plan and
14
Operator Instructions, e.g. special
characteristics are identified by
supplier, effective and
understandable controls are
specified for affected operators use
15 Supplier has capability of retrieving
current drawing revision for usage on
floor inspections and specification
verification.

Score

process.

0 - Supplier has extensive measurement/calibration

system in place.
3 - Supplier has major measurement/calibration system
in place, but needs minor improvements.
5 - Supplier has minor measurement/calibration system
in place, but needs major improvements.
10 - Supplier has no
measurement/calibration system in place.
0 - Supplier has ANDON system
in place.
2 - Supplier has ANDON system in place, but needs
minor improvements.
3 - Supplier has ANDON system in place, but
needs major improvements.
PSA Version 9

5
0

Comments

ANDON system and its application.

Quality
Category

Sub-Category

Item

19

20

Risk

Usage of statistical methods in

process control systems.

Risk Rating
3 - Supplier has ANDON system
inGuideline
place, but
needs major improvements.
5 - Supplier has no ANDON system in place.

0 - Supplier has experience with OEM

manufacturing.
10 - Supplier has no major OEM manufacturing
experience.

Supplier experience in major OEM

manufacturing.

Supplier is familiar with US AIAG

manufacturing standards e.g. MSA,
21 SPC, APQP, FMEA, PPAP
22 Does the supplier currently export
product
Employee
Involvement

0 - Supplier has excellent Process Control

systems in place.
3 - Supplier has major Process Control systems in
place, but needs minor improvements.
5 - Supplier has minor Process Control systems in
place, but needs major improvements.
10 - Supplier has no Process Control
systems in place.

Threshold

5
0

0
0

0 - Supplier has experience with AIAG

requirements.
10 - Supplier has no exposure to AIAG requirements.

- Yes

- No

0 - Teams formed to solve plant issues, teams

are
5 -active
Teams formed, however
management
follow-up
is missing
10 - Employees
are not

23 Are employees encouraged to get

involved in problem solving
workshops

Score

involved in problem solving

0 - Program is evidenced and meets
expectation

24 Supplier has an effective employee

suggestion program; metrics include
no. suggestions/employee/year,
percent suggestions implemented by
year, improvement in rate of
employee suggestions submitted per
year, improvement in rate of
suggestions implemented per year
25 Are employees recognized for their
achievements
26 Are team meeting areas available,
and are performance charts
displayed in the area

Does the supplier support extra27 curricular activities, viz. picnics,

sports, social service

5
0

3 - Program significantly complies with

expectation; minor issues
5 - Program shows significant non-compliance
with expectations; major issues

0 - Yes, discussions held regularly

5 - Discussions held, however monitoring
evidence not available
10 - Procedure not followed

0
3

- Yes

- No

- Yes
- No

0
268

Total Points

Possible Risk Points

PSA Version 9

152

Comments

Quality
Category

Sub-Category

Item

Risk

Risk Rating Guideline

PSA Version 9

Score

Threshold

Comments

Potential Supplier Assessment

Technology
Category
Engineering

Sub-Category
Engineering Support

Item

Risk

Engineering in sourcing region.

Risk Rating Guideline

Score

Threshold

0 - Engineering and Manufacturing site located

in same
region. and Manufacturing site located
3
- Engineering
in different region.

- Yes

- No

0 - Supplier has design resources on

site.
2 - Supplier uses experienced outsourced
resources.
5
- Supplier has plan to develop and obtain
CAD/CAM
resources
10 - Supplier
has no plans of obtaining
resources
0 - Supplier has demonstrated understanding
of Design Validation.
5 - Supplier has some Design Validation skills, but
needs major enhancements.
10 - Supplier has no Design Validation tasks in
place.

0 - Engineering located in sourcing

region.
5 - Engineering not in sourcing region, but has
plan
locate in region.
7 - to
Engineering
located locally, not in sourcing
region.

Design
Capability/Control

Location of engineering
different than manufacturing?

Can supplier provide

integrated engineer to be
onsite at GM?

Onsite CAD/CAE resources?

Supplier demonstrates
understanding of Design
Validation.

Does supplier have UG

capability?

0 - Supplier has UG and shows evidence of

proficiency.
5 - Supplier has UG, no experience, but has
training plans.
10 - Supplier does not have UG capability.

Does supplier have design

evaluation tools, ie. FEA,
HALT?

Not applicable. Supplier is not design

responsible.
0 - Supplier shows evidence of past usage of
design
tools. uses outside design service for
3 - Supplier

10

10

these tools.
7 - No evidence of prior use, but has plan to
obtain
training.
10 - No
evidence of use and no
plan for training.

Prior use and knowledge of

DFMEA.

0 - Supplier shows evidence of past usage of

DFMEA.
5 - Limited experience using DFMEA, and has
training plan.
10 - No experience using DFMEA.

Benchmarking used to develop

new designs?

Not applicable. Supplier is not design

responsible.
0 - Fully documented system exists and has
benchmarking records on file.

PSA Version 9

10

Comments

Technology
Category

Sub-Category

Benchmarking used to develop

new designs?
Item

Risk

10
0 - Fully documented system
existsGuideline
and has
Risk Rating
benchmarking records on file.
3 - Proactively participates in benchmarking businesswide
practices.
10 -best
Does
not have evidence of
benchmarking.

PSA Version 9

Score

Threshold

Comments

Technology
Category

Sub-Category

Item

Risk

Are there records of formal

10 documented design reviews by
the appropriate internal
functions conducted at
appropriate stages of design
per the design plan?

Risk Rating Guideline

0 - Supplier shows evidence of

external reviews.
5 - Supplier conducts reviews but does not
have supporting document.
10 - Supplier does not conduct external
design reviews.

Evidence of regular design and

11 development reviews with
customers.

12 Are design documents and

data reviewed and approved
by authorized personnel prior
to issue?
13 Is there a master list (or
equivalent) identifying
document revision status
readily available?
14 Does supplier have technology
partner?

15 Supplier is capable of
supporting a 18 month or less
development schedule.

Electronic Data
Transfer and
Design Software
System

0 - Supplier has conducted and documented

design reviews.
5 - No evidence of design
reviews.

0 - Supplier has formal document

and
process.
5 -data
Supplier
shows evidence of plan to develop
procedure.
10 - No procedure and plan in
place.
0 - Evidence of revision
document
that is current.
3
- Has revision
document, but is
not current.
5 - No evidence of revision
document.
Not required.
0 - Supplier has partner >1 year.
2 - Supplier has partner < 1 year.
10 - Joint venture partner required, but no
partnership established.
Eighteen month development
schedule
required.of 18 month development
0
- Priornot
experience
cycle.
5 - Proposal to meet 18 months with
exceptions.
10 - Cannot meet 18 month
development cycle.
0 - Experience transferring data
to GM.
2 - No experience with GM, but
has
5 -capability.
Can not transfer data

16 Electronic data transfer

capability.

Score

Threshold

10

electronically.

17 Electronic data transfer and

design software is compatible
or exceeds customer
requirements, utilizing the
latest improvements in design
modeling technology

18 What type of internet

connection?

0 - Supplier has latest software.

1 - Supplier has earlier software version, but has
plan for latest version.
3 - Supplier has plan to obtain
required
software.
5 - Supplier
does not have latest software and
has no plan to obtain.

- Broadband, T1 or equivalent.

3 - DSL or ADSL.
5 - Dial up or no onsite
connection.

PSA Version 9

Comments

Technology
Category

Sub-Category

Design Process
Avoids Hazardous
and
Environmentally
Sensitive Materials

What type of internet

connection?
Item

Risk

19 Supplier aware of and will

abide by GMW3059?

5 - Dial up or no onsite Risk Rating Guideline

connection.
0 - No hazardous materials used
in design process.
3 - Full consideration for disposal and traceability of
hazardous materials.
10 - No consideration.

PSA Version 9

Score

Threshold

Comments

Technology
Category

Sub-Category
Validation and
methods for
identifying and
updating issues.

Lessons
Learned

Lessons Learned

Item

Risk

Risk Rating Guideline

Score

Threshold

20 Does supplier have past

knowledge and use of
validation plans and forms?

0 - Supplier has evidence of successful

validation plans.
10 - Supplier has no prior experience
with validation.

21 Is the performance testing

(that considers and includes as
appropriate life, durability,
reliability) tracked for timely
completion and conformance?

0 - Evidence of a comprehensive test plan that

tracks testing.
5 - Test plan is available but not
up to date.
10 - No evidence of test plan being tracked to
completion.

22 Does supplier have

documented evidence of
lessons learned?

0 - Evidence of lessons learned

database or records.
5 - Supplier shows evidence of process but no
implementation.
10 - No process in place for

10

0
180

113

lessons learned.

Total Points

Possible Risk Points

PSA Version 9

Comments

Potential Supplier Assessment

Service
Category

Sub-Category

Management Plant Utilization

Item

Risk

How long has the supplier been

in the business that they are
quoting?

Does supplier/facility currently

provide OEM automotive parts?

Does supplier track PPM level

with their current customers?

Voice of the Customer (VOC):

How do you communicate
customer concerns to your
organization?

How are VOC concerns

escalated through the
organization to ensure efficient
resolution with minimal impact
to your customer?

Does supplier/facility have a

feed back method from
management to employee?

Risk Rating Guideline

Score

Threshold

10

0 - Documented communication
process in place and active
5 - Communication but no process
in place
10 - No process/ineffective process

- Written and verbal

- Verbal

- 6 Years or Greater

- 3 to 5 Years

- 0 to 2 Years

- Tier 1

- Tier 2

- Tier 3 or higher

0 - Documented evidence available

10 - Difficulty providing
documented evidence
20 - No evidence
0 - Documented proactive process
with evidence
5 - Reactive instead of proactive
10

10

Does the supplier/facility have a

documented procedure in place
to regulate the specification
controls and/or changes for
OEM/Service product?
Does the supplier have a
formalized program
management team/process?

- No process

- None

0 - Documented process in place and

visually verified
3 - Documented process in place and not
controlled in production
5 - Little to no evidence of a procedure to
control changes
0 - At Central Office with resources dedicated at
manufacturing plant
3 - At central office only
7
10

- Not well defined

- None

PSA Version 9

Comments

Service
Category

Sub-Category

Item

Risk

Logistics

Inventory Control
(LIFO / FIFO),
Handling, Storage,
Packaging,
Shipping,
Experience With
Sequencing

Does supplier/facility possess

packaging capabilities in house?

People

Hiring, Training,

Risk Rating Guideline

Score

Threshold

0 - Good cross-section of low and

high seniority
3- No extreme percentages of
seniority
5 - Majority of staff has very high or
low seniority

- Less than 10%

- 10% to 15%

0 - Well documented, verification of

effectiveness, mentoring process
5 - No follow-up, little evidence, minimal
documentation
10 - No written training manual, no
follow-up

0 - Dual written literature, on site

translators
5 - Little literature available

0 - Minimum or no premium
shipments
10 - Excessive premium shipments

- Yes

- No

- 85 - 100%

3 - A percentage of the packaging

is third party
5 - The majority or all packaging is
third party

10 Average employee seniority?

11 Employee turnover rate?

10

12 Is there a comprehensive
employee training program?

13 How does the supplier/facility

deal with internal/external
language barriers?

10

Delivery

14 Do you make premium

shipments?

15

Do you have a process in place

to handle premium shipping
requests?
What is the suppliers current on
16 time delivery percentage for
service parts?

17 What is the internal

supplier/facility current PPM?

- All capabilities in house

- Greater than 15%

- Nothing available

10

- 75 - 84%

15

- 65 - 74%

20

- 0 - 64%

- 25 or less

- 26 to 50

10

- Greater than 50

PSA Version 9

15

10

Comments

Service
Category

Sub-Category

Material

Item

Risk

18 What corrosion protection do

you provide for the parts?

19 Prototype fabrication capability

in house or outsourced.

Prototype
Fabrication
Capability

Risk Rating Guideline

Score

Threshold

0 - Evidence of adequate corrosion protection

in use or if not applicable
5 - inconsistent use of corrosion
protection
10 - Little to no evidence of
corrosion protection

0 - Capable of prototype design and fabrication

in-house.
3 - Capable of some basic design prototyping in
house.
5 - All prototype requirements are

10

outsourced.

20 Does supplier have SLA/SLS

capability? Outsourced?

Misc
Questions

Misc
Questions

Is there any pending litigation

21 against the supplier/facility?

22 Has the supplier/facility been

cited and or fined for failure to
comply with any state/federal
regulations and or statures in
the past 2 years?

X
X

0 - Capable of in house SLA/SLS

prototyping.
3 - Outsourced SLA/SLS with
capable supplier.
10 - No ability for quick turn
prototypes.

10

10

- Yes

- No

0
205

112

- Yes
- No

Total Points

Possible Risk Points

PSA Version 9

Comments

Potential Supplier Assessment

Price
Score
Category
Company
Ownership

Sub-Category
In regard to the
Company Profile:

Item

Risk

1
Is the company privately held?

10

0 - Formal Change communication and quote

within
2 dayscommunication/quoting
of requested change. of engineering
5
- Formal
changes >3 days to respond to customer
10 - No documented process for handling
change requests.

1 - All suppliers capacities are known and used for

capacity planning/quoting purposes.
5 - Some suppliers capacities are known and used for
capacity planning/quoting purposes.
10 - Supplier capacities are not
known

- Yes

- No

Are there relevant business

arrangements with other
suppliers? (JV, Alliance
Partners, Co-Development,
Shared Patents, etc)?

0 - None
1 - No, Division of Global Mega
Supplier
5 - Yes, Shared Patents an/or Co-Development
Agreement
7 - Yes, Joint Venture directly impacts business
under consideration
0

In regard to
Product
Management

Tiered Supplier
Management

What is the financial status of

the company?

What are your payment terms

and conditions for tier 2
suppliers? (ex. MNS2 - MNS2
denotes payment on the 2nd
day of the 2nd month after
receipt of goods)?
Does top management
regularly review supplier
performance? (Box Chart Type
Metrics)

7
What is supplier's turn around
time for quoting engineering
changes?

Does supplier's capacity

planning comprehend the
maximum capacities of all
tiered suppliers?

- No

1 - Yes, Contract Current

5 - Yes, Contract Expiring Prior to
Launch

Is the company unionized?

Comments

Threshold

Risk Rating Guideline

1 - Financial Indicators are Good

3 - Company is stable with low
financial stress score
7 - Company is stable with high
financial stress score
10 - Financially troubled supplier

- MNS2

3- > 60 day payments

5- < 60 day payments

0 - Yes, Supplier Performance Reviews are held at

least
quarterly
5 - Yes,
Supplier Performance Reviews
are
held
needed
10 - No,astop
management is not involved
in Supplier Reviews

PSA Version 9

Price
Score
Category

Sub-Category

Item

Risk

What are your agreements

with your suppliers with regard
to providing service parts? At
production pricing? How long
will parts be available?

Threshold

Risk Rating Guideline

1 - Service part agreements are included in original

contracts with suppliers.
4 - Service part agreements are negotiated with
suppliers after award of business.
7 - Service part agreements are negotiated with
suppliers
just prior
to End of Production.
10
- Service
part agreements
are not negotiated
with suppliers.

PSA Version 9

Comments

Price
Score
Category

Sub-Category

Legal
Systems

Item

10

Risk

Is supplier familiar with GM

Contract Terms & Conditions?

11

Does the supplier have a

process in place to ensure
compliance with the global
Sullivan principles?
12

Cost Control

13

X
Does the supplier have a
process in place to ensure
compliance with Secure Data
Management to ensure
confidential treatment of GM
information and
documentation?
Does supplier have change
management process that
addresses cost management
of engineering changes
(VA/VE, Management and
Manufacturing Review)?

14

Finance Books

Comments

1 - Yes.
3 - Yes. A copy was provided and under
review.
8 - Yes. The PSA supplier takes exception to GM
Terms and Conditions.
10 - No.

0 - Yes. Management Sign-off in

Place.
5 - Yes. Global Sullivan Principles compliance in
process. Plan available.
10 - No. PSA Supplier is not familiar with the
Global Sullivan Principles.

10

10

- Yes.

5 - Procedure exists but needs improvement/need to show more

evidence of compliance
10 - No. Process in place or any evidence of
securing data

1 - Yes. Process Supports GM

Requirements
5 - Yes. Process takes longer than
allocated by GM. >3 days
10

- No. No formal process exists.

- Yes.

Does supplier work to realize

production efficiencies in order
to share savings with
customer?

3 - Yes. Supplier can demonstrate efficiencies, but

does not share the savings with customers.
5 - No. Supplier does not gain production
efficiencies over time.

15 Are finances properly tracked

to ensure a continuous flow of
raw material?

0 - ERP system is properly

5
- Raw materials
are purchased and paid for on an
implemented
and monitored
as
basis is in place to monitor
10 needed
- No system
material costs

0 - ERP system is properly implemented and

monitored
5 - Clerks or controllers have been assigned to
pay outstanding
10
- No systeminvoices
exists to monitor accounting
activities

0 - Comfortable ratio in conjunction with company

scale
5 - Lopsided ratio in conjunction with

17 Are accounts payable and

receivable properly monitored
to ensure a stable business
environment?
Ratios

Threshold

Risk Rating Guideline

18 What is the Debt/Equity ratio?

company scale

19 What is the inventory turn?

- High turn frequency

- Low turn frequency

PSA Version 9

Price
Score
Category

Sub-Category

Item

Risk

20 What is the trend of CAGR

(Compounded Annual Growth
Rate)?
21 What is the health of
Operating Cash Flow?

Threshold

Risk Rating Guideline

- Low turn frequency

- Consistent growth YOY

- Stagnancy reflecting in the trend

0 - Comfortable enough to support the organization

functioning
5 - Organization struggling at times for

Comments

15

87

want of working capital

Total Points

Possible Risk Points

157

PSA Version 9