Process Review Report

The Process Review Report demonstrates that a current, active process has been examined and evaluated against one or more quality standard(s). It assigns any scores, ratings, or grades required by the standard(s).

a. Use this DID for reports resulting from process reviews carried out by contractors or governmental entities based on relevant quality standards. The term review shall be used herein to encompass any inspection, audit, evaluation, assessment, analysis, or similar event involving an examination relative to a fixed standard. Any reference to a reviewer shall be understood to include an inspector, auditor, evaluator, assessor, analyst, or examiner. All references to standards shall be understood to mean specific, identified, codified, published quality standards. Associated measures of value or worth are also included within the scope of quality, such as, but not limited to, reliability, effectiveness, utility, surety, feasibility, practicability, maintainability, producibility, or sustainability.

b. This DID is applicable when a Government organizational unit enters into a contract, interagency agreement, or other formal relationship where a process is reviewed with respect to one or more quality standards (internal, governmental, or third party). All references to a contract herein shall be understood to refer to any agreement made in writing between the audited unit and the auditing entity.

c. This DID also applies when the unit (or firm) performs an internal process review or self-review of its process. If the objective is for an external or independent party to carry out or supervise the review, such a requirement must be specified and defined by contract.

d. Within the scope of this DID, a process consists of a procedure, a systematic series or cluster of functions or activities, or a defined series of procedures that yield one or more distinct (but related) results, intermediate products, or end products.

e. This DID applies only to review of those processes that are active or in use, even if only on a pilot scale or for a trial period. It does not apply to a pre-emptive or preparatory review of a process that either is under development or has not yet been implemented. The review shall be geared towards determining (1) the success of a process in contributing to the value stream, which means that outputs, metrics, and records must exist for a process to be properly reviewed, (2) general compliance and conformance with written guidance and direction, (3) whether compliance and conformance yield results that contribute to the value stream, and (4) any areas where improvement is required or encouraged.

f. This DID applies to reports resulting from process reviews that support one or more standards with requirements for process review related to monitoring, surveillance, accreditation, certification, or validation.

g. All kinds of processes may be subjected to review for quality. For example, processes may be administrative, industrial, manufacturing, logistical, descriptive, engineering, calculational, computational, analytical, investigatory, or evaluative in nature.

h. Some examples of processes that may be reviewed for quality are as follows: correcting a technical order, approving an operating instruction, seeking engineering guidance on a nonconforming part, extending shelf-life for paints and coatings, applying sealant to an aircraft, use of the government purchase card, procuring hazardous materials, drum peel testing of bonded sandwich (honeycomb) composites, autoclaving of bonded metal parts, or installation of sheet metal on an aircraft wing.

i. In some cases, processes represent activities of short duration and with few steps (e.g., lap shear testing of bonded metal coupons). In other cases, processes may include significant activities performed under a major program (e.g., shelf-life extension of paints and coatings). Because the scope of a process may be very broad, the review may be narrowly focused on its application for specific products, a set of subprocesses, or a specific pathway through the value stream.

j. This DID can be achieved only when the reviewers possess those certifications, accreditations, skills, knowledge, or other credentials required pursuant to the relevant standard. Likewise, the employing firm or agency must also have the certification, accreditation, or other credentials requisite for the review.

k. Some examples of entities producing third-party standards to which this DID could apply are as follows: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), American Society for Quality (ASQ), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). This DID can also apply when the standard is created or owned by the organization or a Government agency (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, or Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Reviews in support of a third-party standard typically will not be carried out by the third-party organization creating or promulgating the relevant quality standard.

l. Some examples of third-party quality standards to which this DID could apply are as follows: ISO9001 (Quality Management Systems - Requirements), ISO/IEC17025 (General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories), ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9001 (Quality Management Systems - Requirements), and SAE AS9100 (Quality Management Systems: Aerospace Requirements). This DID can also apply when the standard is internal to the organization or a governmental standard (e.g., EPA or FDA Good Laboratory Practices or OSHA Voluntary Protection Program).

m. This DID may be used alone or in conjunction with other DIDs.

n. This DID may be used when the Government requires a report of a process review for a non-governmental entity.

o. This DID is a first issuance and does not supersede any other DID.

p. This DID applies to items with various names, such as process audit report, process review report, process quality review report, process quality audit report, process effectiveness evaluation report, and process effectiveness assessment report. The word report may be substituted with another word, such as document, digest, study, white paper, or analysis. The word report may be omitted altogether from the title of the actual deliverable when it is clear that the deliverable is a report or document. Analogous terms may be used to identify a process review report consistent with the verbiage of any specific quality management system or standard so long as the deliverable represents a work product similar in form, intent, and purpose. Note that the title on this DID must be used in Block 2 of DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List; however, the preferred name or verbiage in the standard may be placed in the Remarks (Block 16) on DD Form 1423 for clarity.