Customer-Specific Requirements

For Use With ISO/TS 16949 Second Edition March 2012 1. Scope
a) ISO/TS 16949 and this document define the fundamental quality system requirements for organizations supplying production and/or service parts to Renault. Supplementary requirements mentioned in this document include the following : 1) The supplier shall achieve a minimum ASES level of C rank (see paragraph 4 requirements) 2) The supplier shall have a Supplier ANPQP Representative (SAR) responsible for ANPQP deployment within their organization. 3) The supplier staff who will work directly with Renault shall have received training in ANPQP. 4) The supplier shall consider and implement good practice regarding sustainable development / social responsibility b) Certification bodies shall provide evidence of their check of some ISO TS 16949 paragraphs listed below as key items.. c) In case of non conformity raised during an ISO TS 16949 audit, the supplier and the certification body shall manage ISO TS non conformities in a robust way. Renault 2012 - All rights reserved - 2nd revision of Renault CSR. Requirements for certification bodies + about NC management added. Sustainable Development and social responsibility now explicitly a CSR. (main changes in blue)

2. References
Information regarding the technical documents that are to be used when working with Renault will be listed in the RFQ and/or will be available through the supplier portal.

3. Definitions
Where inconsistent terminology exists between ISO/TS 16949 and Renault contractual documents / Alliance Supplier Guide (ASG) website, the latter shall take precedence. In all other cases, the definitions used in ISO/TS 16949 shall apply to this document. Certification Body : A firm recognized by the IATF to conduct audits to ISO/TS 16949 and issue certificates to clients. As an IATF OEM member, Renault only recognizes certificates issued by recognized Certification Bodies carrying the IATF logo and specific IATF number.

4. Requirements
Renault specific requirements are expressed partly below, partly in technical information gathered in the RFQ. The supplier is expected to provide products that meet or exceed Renault / Nissan Quality, Cost and Delivery targets. 1. Confirmation of the implementation of the supplier's quality management system and its ability to meet Renault / Nissan requirements will be carried out by Renault / Nissan using the Alliance evaluation audit tools (ASES/ ASAS-P). The supplier shall achieve a minimum level of C rank after ASES evaluation. In some cases, the supplier may be requested to achieve a minimum ASES level of B rank. If the supplier is evaluated at an ASES level of D rank, they will either receive no business or will be obliged to commit at top management level to provide the necessary resources and action plan to achieve the required level. Adherence to this commitment should be considered a Customer Requirement as defined in ISO/TS16949 clause 5.2: Top management shall ensure that customer requirements are determined and are met with the aim of enhancing customer satisfaction". Major disruption will result in notification to the IATF and may lead to suspension of certification. 2. The supplier must have a Supplier ANPQP Representative (SAR) responsible for ANPQP deployment within their organization. The SAR can be at plant or at group level, as long as the following tasks are ensured at certified organization level : - staying up to date with latest ANPQP changes - making sure that point 3) below is followed 3. The supplier staff in contact with Renault during the quotation phase, project development phase and mass production phase must have received ANPQP training. Evidence for 2) and 3) may include, but are not limited to training records, explanation of ANPQP and demonstration on how to access ANPQP webpage, ANPQP portal and log in to ANPQP information system. 4. Renault requests that suppliers delivering to Renault consider and implement good practice regarding sustainable development / social responsibility, especially in the following areas : No child labour / no forced work / Working conditions / Health and Safety / Environmental protection. Applicable evidence may include: - having access to the Renault CSR guidelines, and having access to the organizations signed commitment to DDSF (Dclaration des Droits Sociaux Fondamentaux) Renault 2012 - All rights reserved RPIFDAQDF20110018 (2.0)

1/4

- 2nd party evaluation (for example, customer evaluation) - 3rd party evaluation, such as ISO 26000 evaluation, OHSAS 18001 / ISO14000 certification, Any other system demonstrating that sustainable development / social responsibility concerns are taken seriously by the organization will be accepted. b) The certification body shall include in their report detailed feedback of their checks of the items listed as key items in paragraph 5 / focus on key items. c). In case of non conformity during the ISO TS 16949 audit, the supplier and the certification body must manage ISO TS non conformities in a robust way. The table below lists the respective shalls Step Finding description Requirement for the supplier Findings shall be formally acknowledged by plant manager AND quality manager. (signature). Supplier should reserve 0,5 to 1 day right after the audit to start asap the corrective process, starting with the root cause analysis, should there be any NC. Requirement for the certification body (CB) The CB shall state several examples or preferably the extent of failure of the system. (number of cases out of number of examples picked / ratio of Not OK with respect to scope of system, continuously low performance). The CB should describe the risk associated to this finding (for its customer, the OEM, the final customer) Relevance of effectiveness definition shall be validated. Corresponding documents shall be saved as part of the file.

Definition of effectiveness
(What will be the evidence of effectiveness of corrective actions : Define target and how to measure it (what, when))

It shall be formally defined, preferably with quantified figures or as a binary result, such as proof or eradication of the systemic root causes. This effectiveness definition shall be formalized and communicated to CB jointly with the root cause analysis and prior to the action plan. It shall be documented with a deep analysis for occurrence, non detection and systemic cause of non-conformity. Each type of cause shall be studied down to the root cause thanks to quality tools such as combined Ishikawa and 5 why. Causes should be at organization / management level and not related to individuals. The first 3 steps should be conducted within 21 days. They shall be formally approved by plant manager AND quality manager Action plan shall address root causes and shall ensure that there will not be recurrence of the non conformity where it was found as well as in similar areas where countermeasures shall reasonably be applied. Action plan shall be formally validated by plant manager AND quality manager (signature, paper or electronic).

Root cause analysis

Note : ability to conduct root cause analysis has been validated by CB by item 8.5.2.1. There is no excuse to accept a lame analysis at the same time. Detailed analysis shall be saved as part of the file.

Define SYSTEMIC corrective actions linked to previous analysis :

The CB shall validate the relevance of the action plan and the link to the root cause analysis.

CB should give feedback before 45th day Completion, effectiveness and maintenance of effectiveness for each action Global effectiveness This step should be conducted within 35 days max. It shall be submitted as part of the file, separately for each action previously mentioned in the action plan All requested evidence shall be validated, then saved as part of the file (as requested by IATF rules).

It shall be formally assessed with respect to the effectiveness criteria as defined in corresponding step The 100% solved status was originally created to address the rare cases where the actions could not possibly be completed within 90 days. If some non-conformities are solved using this status, explain why and define current status of action plan completion and new date to send / collect further evidence of achievement and effectiveness as soon as possible. If nonconformity is not solved according to IATF rules and leads to change of certificate status, supplier shall notify Renault of their change of status. (mail to [email protected] and usual Purchasing Department contacts buyer and SAM)

100% solved

Change of status following a Non Conformity or a complaint.

Renault 2012 - All rights reserved RPIFDAQDF20110018 (2.0)

2/4

5. Additional Information regarding Renault position vs ISO TS 16949:2009

Focus on key items
Renault has limited its number of specific requirements because the ISO TS 16949 standard itself is comprehensive. For Renault, the key concepts of the ISO TS 16949 are customer satisfaction as well as self-improvement through efficient problem solving and continuous improvement. All tasks achieved / documents used within this frame should serve these goals : acceptance of a document by an OEM is not a waiver. A study of past quality problems and 2nd party system audits has led Renault to highlight some areas requested by the ISO/TS 16949 standard, for which confirmation of the existence of documented evidence is highly recommended. These are : Item 7.1.4 Change control

7.3.4 Design and development review 7.5.1.3 Verification of job set-ups 8.3 Control of nonconforming product 8.3 Control of nonconforming product 8.3.2 Control of reworked product 8.5.2.1 Problem solving

Whole paragraph, including the note, starting with The organization shall have a process to control and react to changes that impact product realization. The effects of any change, including those changes caused by any supplier, shall be assessed, and verification and validation activities shall be defined, to ensure compliance with customer requirements. Changes shall be validated before implementation.() At suitable stages, systematic reviews of design and development shall be performed (). Records of the results of the reviews and any necessary actions shall be maintained. Job set-ups shall be verified whenever performed, such as an initial run of a job, material changeover or job change. The organization shall ensure that product which does not conform to product requirements is identified and controlled to prevent its unintended use or delivery (..)When nonconforming product is corrected it shall be subject to reverification to demonstrate conformity to the requirements.

Evidence of risk analysis should be documented

Evidence of verification should be accessible

The ergonomics and the robustness of the method used have to be considered when evaluating conformance to clause 8.3

Instructions for rework, including re-inspection requirements, shall be accessible to and utilized by the appropriate Personnel The organization shall have a defined process for problem solving leading to root cause identification and elimination.

Problem solving must be thorough enough to solve the problems. Acceptance of a problem solving file by a customer is no waiver for a poor analysis, as the ultimate goal of the analysis should be for the organization itself to solve its problem

8.5.2.3 Corrective action impact 7.3.6.3 Product approval process

The organization shall apply to other similar processes and products the corrective action, and controls implemented, to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity. The organization shall conform to a product and manufacturing process approval procedure recognized by the customer. NOTE Product approval should be subsequent to the verification of the manufacturing process.[]

Documented evidence is necessary

Note that it is the organization responsibility to ensure the verification of its process, regardless of the customer approval.

Renault and the core tools

FMEA The use of FMEA (according to AIAG Manual, latest version) is widely accepted. The use of Renault AMDEC is recommended in accordance with standard 01-33-200. (accessible through Renault supplier portal GD norms); The Suppliers own standard is accepted. Whenever requested by Renault, a Product, Process or Means FMEA / AMDEC shall be submitted for verification and validation. FMEA should be a living document, used to evaluate risks and therefore updated regularly along with the latest changes (7.1.4) The use of MSA is accepted. However the use of the CNOMO standard or Renault specific methods are recommended. As part of purchasing contracts, Renault requests the use of ANPQP . . The supplier is required to rigorously apply ANPQP to identify all reasonably foreseeable potential safety issues and to take preventative actions to ensure that such safety issues do not occur during the use of the product. The structure of ANPQP is similar to the structure of the AIAG APQP document. This has been done to facilitate understanding of ANPQP Note : Though not forbidden, a detailed check of an ANPQP folder is not requested from the certification bodies

MSA

APQP

Renault 2012 - All rights reserved RPIFDAQDF20110018 (2.0)

3/4

PPAP

SPC

The equivalent for Renault of the Production Part Approval Process is the ANPQP (Alliance New Product Quality Procedure). The equivalent for Renault of the PPAP submission or PPAP package is the PSW (Part Submission Warrant). This link between PPAP and ANPQP / PSW is for explanation purpose only. Capabilities: Renault accepts the use of capabilities according to AIAG manual, but recommends the use of Renault internal methods and targets. Control charts : Renault accepts the use of control charts and rules for reaction as defined in the AIAG manual. The basic principles of control charts should be considered, including control limits are not tolerance ranges, and should be calculated according to usual SPC rules In case a need for reaction is identified, according to chosen SPC common sense rule, the reaction should be conducted, recorded, and its result confirmed with documented evidence.

Notification to certification bodies

Status Ppm Alarm level 2 Ppm Alarm level 3 Blockage ASES D rank and commitment not adhered to ASES D rank for an organization seeking certification to ISO/TS 16949:2009 Notification to CB Renault reserves the right to notify the Certification Body, according to IATF rules, after detecting a serious quality problem such as repetitive car blockages, recall campaigns, recurrence of Quality alarms, weak ASES results or insufficient involvement in Rank Up activities. These situations may also lead to a Business Hold by Renault.

Renault 2012 - All rights reserved RPIFDAQDF20110018 (2.0)

4/4