PPAP Qualified Laboratory Documentation

01How to use this chapter

This chapter separates the uploaded assessment criteria from practical KEVOS implementation guidance. The section titled Source-derived assessment criteria preserves the intent, terminology and checklist detail supplied in the uploaded PPAP Assessment. The surrounding handbook guidance explains how a manufacturing or supplier-quality team can organise evidence, perform a readiness review and spot gaps before formal submission. Where the uploaded source states a numeric threshold, edition reference or customer-specific expectation, it is identified as source-derived rather than presented as a universal rule.

Use the chapter in three passes. First, read the purpose and workflow to understand what the element is meant to prove. Second, work through the source-derived prompts against the actual part number, engineering revision and production process. Third, close the red flags and collect objective evidence before the package is released. For large PPAPs, record the evidence location beside each source prompt so another reviewer can repeat the assessment without relying on verbal explanation.

02Handbook workflow

1. Identify every laboratory-dependent requirementMap each material/performance test to the lab that performs it.
2. Verify laboratory qualification and scopeConfirm accreditation or Organization approval as required and make sure the certified/approved scope actually covers the test method used.
3. Check report traceabilityReports should be on company letterhead and identify the relevant part, specification/test method, dates, quantity and actual results.
4. Review subcontract controlIf an outside lab is used, verify approved/accredited status and control the transfer of samples and test requirements.
5. Check special characteristics and nonconformanceEnsure applicable special characteristics are included and any failure is highlighted with appropriate controlled disposition.
6. Assess method correlationWhere required, demonstrate that different laboratories or methods produce sufficiently comparable results.
7. Confirm ongoing system healthReview scheduled audits, sampling/test frequency feasibility and the ability to perform additional testing when a reaction plan requires it.

03Evidence package to retain

The assessment is stronger when each conclusion points to a controlled record rather than a statement that the requirement is “covered”. The following evidence set is a practical minimum for this chapter; actual customer and contractual requirements govern the live submission.

• Signed/dated laboratory scope
• Accreditation certificate or Organization approval
• Scope listing the actual tests performed
• Company-letterhead test reports
• Test specification/method identity
• Actual criteria and actual data
• Material/performance test results
• Special-characteristic coverage
• Subcontract lab approval/accreditation
• Correlation-study evidence where required
• Scheduled laboratory audit evidence
• Customer approval where required

04Source-derived assessment criteria

• 1.Is a complete, signed and dated lab scope available?
• 2.Does the lab scope (as defined on the certification or addendum to the certification) list all tests performed by the lab?
• 3.Are qualified independent laboratory checks defined?
• 4.Results shall be reported on Companies letterhead.
• 5.Are all Special Characteristics from the drawing (and drawing notes) included?
• 6.Is any nonconformance highlighted in the report? If so a deviation shall be provided or PPAP rejected!
• 7.Is material test (chemical, metallurgical, etc) results included?
• 8.Are performance test results included?
• 9.Has testing specification been identified on all tests?
• 10.Are all testing results less than one (1) year old?
• 11.Is all testing summarized with actual criteria and data (pass/fail statement is unacceptable)?
• 12.Is the quantity tested identified (if required)?
• 13.Is test loading sufficient to provide all conditions, i.e. production validation and end use?
• 14.Will all product testing be done in-house? If not, does an approved or accredited subcontractor do it as stated above?
• 15.Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specification been tested?
• 16.Can additional samples be tested when a reaction plan requires it?
• 17.Are documented regularly scheduled audits conducted?
• 18.Is the specified test sampling size and/or frequency feasible?
• 19.If required have correlation studies been conducted?
• 20.If required, has customer approval been obtained for the test?

05Common red flags

These are practical review signals derived from the relationships and controls repeatedly required by the source. A red flag does not automatically mean the submission must be rejected; it means the condition deserves documented resolution before approval.

• Lab certificate exists but the required test is outside its scope
• Subcontract lab identity is missing from the report
• Only pass/fail is reported with no actual data
• Specification/test method revision is unclear
• Special-characteristic test is missing
• Nonconformance appears in raw data but is not highlighted
• Correlation issue between internal and external lab remains unresolved

06Cross-document interfaces

PPAP elements should not be reviewed as isolated files. Check the following interfaces for consistent part identity, revision, characteristic naming, operation numbering and control logic.

07Assessor close-out checklist

• The element is present or a controlled waiver/agreement explains why it is not required.
• The submitted record identifies the correct part number and engineering revision where applicable.
• The evidence is legible, understandable, controlled and traceable to the submitted product/process.
• Special characteristics and known customer concerns are treated consistently across related documents.
• Any nonconformance, temporary control, deviation or interim condition is visible and formally dispositioned.
• Actions have owners, due dates and objective closure evidence where the source expects corrective action.
• The final conclusion can be independently repeated by another reviewer using the package alone.

08Frequently asked questions

09Source and limitations

Primary source: uploaded Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) Assessment / PPAP Submission Assessment, 15 pages, Quality-One. Source sections used on this page: 2.2.12 Qualify Laboratory Documentation. Approximate source page coverage: 12-13.

This KEVOS chapter is an educational and assessment aid. It preserves the uploaded document's criteria but does not replace controlled customer-specific requirements, engineering specifications, contractual requirements or an official PPAP/APQP manual. Where the source references “PPAP 4th edition”, AIAG methods, Organization systems or Organization-specific targets, those references are retained as source context rather than silently updated or generalized.