PW TOOLING AUDIT WAS LAST WEEK

Most of the tooling was for parts we do not build anymore and they are very difficult to locate but below is the audit results. We still have until the 27th to sort things out.

Thanks again for all the time and energy you put into yesterday’s visit. And special thanks to Sam too, for all his time and work. Here is the current status and the next steps as I remember them. Please let me know if I need to correct anything or if I have forgotten anything…

  1. Sample Set 1: We viewed 9 of 25 items from Sample Set 1. You will need to provide date-stamped pictures of the remaining 16 tools (7 of which are located at your alternate site).
  2. Sample Set 2: We viewed 13 of 25 items from Sample Set 2. You will need to provide date-stamped pictures of the remaining 12 tools (5 of which are located at your alternate site).
  3. We uncovered an issue with multiples of the same tool which are not serialized, and which don’t have their own records. In most cases, only 1 of the tools is USG owned, so the USG owned tool (or tool set) will need to have it’s own record, and will need to be serialized (both in the tool marking and in the record). In some cases, you will need to remove the USG marking from the non-USG owned ones. This was identified as an issue in the following tools (so far):
    1. TJ-20245 (2 sets of 2 viewed, only 1 owned by USG) – The 1 owned by USG should say “set of 2” in the descriptions in our records and yours.
    2. TJ-20234 (2 sets of 2 viewed, only 1 owned by USG) – The 1 owned by USG should say “set of 2” in the descriptions in our records and yours.
    3. TJ-20287 (2 sets of 2 viewed, only 1 owned by USG) – The 1 owned by USG should say “set of 2” in the descriptions in our records and yours.
    4. TJ-20244 (2 sets of 2 viewed, only 1 owned by USG) – The 1 owned by USG should say “set of 2” in the descriptions in our records and yours.
    5. OT-3909 (you have multiples, at least 2 are marked USG. PW records only show 1 USG owned OT-3909. You only have 1 record for all of them.
    6. ET-13124 (you have multiples. The one we viewed was not marked USG, but you may have 1 marked USG that we didn’t find. You believe you have at least 5 of this tool, although only record of 1)
    7. TJ-20222 (This was located in the Broach shelves. I have a note that it may be a set of 2. Please confirm before I update the description to say “Set of 2”.
  4. Floor-to-Record items. All 7 items that I pulled had records in your database. This is an improvement from last year.
    1. TJ-20221 needs updated description to say “set of 2”.
  5. Records: Last year it was noted that required elements were missing, and tools were missing from the database. You have added all of those elements, with the exception of location data (which you now have a column for, but which is not populated.
    1. As we discussed, the lack of location data is problematic, as evidenced by the fact that we spent many hours looking for tools today and were still missing many. You currently have no record of where tools are.
    2. You still need to add all the tools which are located at alternate locations into your database. You currently have no records for those tools.
  6. Policies and Procedures: Last year it was noted that your policies and procedures did not address all required outcomes sufficiently. The plan was to adopt WP-500 for the Thomasville site. This still had not been implemented, but you are taking the action to get a version of WP-500 accepted, distributed and implemented.
  7. Marking: Only 1 items of the 24 we have viewed so far was missing marking (and it is possible that was one of the multiples, not the USG one). This shows some improvement from last year when 3 of 25 items were missing USG marking.
  8. Utilization: Last year a USG tool was being utilized inappropriately, on a Rolls Royce part. There was no evidence of continued issues there. You believe it has been addressed by training the operators on the requirements for tools marked as USG owned. This should be further corrected when you adopt your updated procedures which address utilization. Hopefully it will also be further protected against when you serialize the tools which are multiples to clearly identify which is the USG owned tool. Hopefully, going forward, tooling which is not specialized will not be billed to the government. I believe you said it was the jigs which really are not specialized.
  9. Storage: Your storage areas will likely need to be organized, especially in Plant 2, where it appears that most of the tooling from the closed Smith Ave. was put rather haphazardly. This is related to your need to begin tracking location, as you will have to have identified locations (aisle, shelf, rack, bin…) that the tooling is put in.

To summarize much of our discussion, the issues with Records, Multiples of tools which are not accounted for in records, and Storage will probably need to be addressed hand in hand. Using the annual inventory which we send you, you will need to ensure you have 1 serialized record for each USG owned tool, that it is marked accordingly, and put in a location that is added to the database. You will then need to figure out how the locations get updated when tools are moved.

Actions:

  1. I have set up a Zoom meeting for 4/27/23 to view the date-stamped pictures of the remaining tools from Sample Set 1 and 2. Any pictures not obtained by the 27th, will be considered missing. I won’t be able to offer any additional time for them, as that will be a full month from when you were first sent the listing.
  2. You are going to work on filling out the Extra-Surveillance Form and return it to me (hopefully this week). We will then set up a call to discuss procedures in more detail.
  3. Once you confirm that my notes above are correct for the tools which we believe are sets of 2, both you and I will update our record descriptions to say “set of 2”.
  4. You are working on adapting WI-500 to your site and are applying for an official Work Instruction number. Your target date for getting them accepted and to the distribution/implementation phase is 5/11/23.

That is a lot of stuff but it was actually marginally better than last year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *