Anda di halaman 1dari 24

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-85 14 November 2017


Suppliers Assessment and Approval
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee

Contents
1 Scope ................................................................ 2
2 Conflicts and Deviations ................................... 2
3 Applicable Documents ...................................... 2
4 Definitions and Abbreviations............................ 3
5 General ............................................................. 4
6 Registration and Workflow Creation .................. 6
7 Screening .......................................................... 7
8 Manufacturing Plant Assessments .................... 9
9 Reporting Manufacturing Plant Assessments . 10
10 Support to Newly Established Local
Manufacturers ................................................. 12
11 Approval Process Finalization ......................... 13
12 Approved Suppliers Maintenance ................... 13
13 Roles and Responsibilities .............................. 15
14 Exhibits ........................................................... 20
Revision Summary.................................................. 20

Exhibit I: Assessment Request Matrix ................... 21


Exhibit II: Manufacturing Plant
Assessment Process Map in SAP .................. 22
Exhibit III: Vendor Compliance Letter .................... 23
Exhibit IV: Vendor Acknowledgement
of Assessment Findings Form ......................... 24

Previous Issue: New Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020


Page 1 of 24
Contact: Megren, Abdulaziz A. (megraa0a) on phone +966-13-8804510

©Saudi Aramco 2017. All rights reserved.


Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

1 Scope

This procedure defines the minimum requirements, roles, and responsibilities to assess
technical and quality capabilities of new and existing manufacturing plants to supply
Saudi Aramco facilities and projects with inspectable commodities (9COMs) as defined
in SAEP-44 and SAEP-133.

2 Conflicts and Deviations

Any conflicts between this document and other applicable Mandatory Saudi Aramco
Engineering Requirements (MSAERs) shall be addressed to the EK&RD Coordinator.

Any deviation from the requirements herein shall follow internal company procedure
SAEP-302.

3 Applicable Documents

All referenced specifications, standards, codes, forms, drawings, and similar material
shall be of the latest issue (including all revisions, addenda, and supplements) unless
stated otherwise.

3.1 Saudi Aramco References

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures


SAEP-44 Instructions for Commodity Material Management
SAEP-133 Instructions for the Development and Maintenance
of “Inspectable Commodities” Engineering
Standards
SAEP-302 Instructions for Obtaining a Waiver of a Mandatory
Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement
SAEP-347 Supplying Material from Stockists
SAEP-380 Equipment Deficiency Report
SAEP-397 Vendor Performance Escalation

Saudi Aramco Manual


Procurement Manual Supplier Qualification and Registration (Prg. 6.31)

3.2 Industry Codes and Standards

International Standardization Organization


ISO 9001 Quality Management System Requirements

Page 2 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

ISO 19011 Guidelines for Auditing Quality Management System

4 Definitions and Abbreviations

AAJ: Aramco Asia Japan. The abbreviation in SAP for Aramco Asia Operations.

ASC: Aramco Services Company in Houston

AOC: Aramco Overseas Company in The Hague

UD: SAP Usage Decision Code (i.e., QSAA, QSNA, etc.)

Corrective Action: An action taken to eliminate the causes of any existing


nonconformity or other undesirable situation in order to prevent recurrence.

Finding: Results of the collected assessment evidences against assessment criteria.


Assessment findings can indicate either nonconformity or opportunities for improvement.

IDCAT: Inspection categories as defined in SAEP-44.

Nonconformance: A nonfulfillment of specified requirement, or a lack of


effectiveness of methods or controls for a given process.

P&SCM: Procurement and Supply Chain Management

Quality Assessor: Inspection Department representative responsible for conducting


and evaluating the quality management system of a manufacturing plant.

Recommendation: Opportunities for improvement, best practices, or potential


nonconformance.

Responsible Inspection Office (RIO): Vendor Assessment Unit of Inspection


Department in Dhahran, AOC Quality Management in The Hague, ASC Inspection Unit
in Houston, or Aramco Asia Quality Management in Tokyo.

Supplier Relations Unit (SRU): The entity responsible for supplier relations
coordination. This is recognized as Supplier Relations & Qualification Unit in SAO, or
its equivalent in Saudi Aramco subsidiaries: Supplier Relations Groups in AOC & AAJ,
or Strategic Project Group in ASC.

Sourcing Management Unit: The entity responsible for developing the Materials’
Sourcing priority list, which is based on the corporate Materials Sourcing Strategy.
The entity is centrally located in SAO to support and concur all Out of Kingdom New
Manufacturing Registration and Additional Materials Requests.

Technical Assessor: An engineer qualified to conduct a technical assessment of a


manufacturing plant for a specific commodity. The technical assessment includes both

Page 3 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

the engineering and manufacturing capabilities.

Technical Assessment Unit (TAU): The entity responsible for technical Assessments,
such as: CSD, P&CSD, EPD, Drilling, or other technical department.

Technical Unit Supervisor (TUS): The supervisor or group leader of TAU.

Usage Decision (UD): SAP terminology used at the stage of final decision on
manufacturer to assign approval status.

Vendor: An organization that supplies materials and/or services to company.

Vendor Review Committee (VRC): A committee under Engineering Services (ES)


chartered to oversee and approve vendor approval related actions to supply 9COMs
under ES jurisdiction, per established bylaws.

5 General

5.1 Assessment Request Type

SAP workflow Assessment requests are categorized into the following:


 New Manufacturing Plant
 Update Existing Manufacturing Plant
 Delink
 One-Time Approval
 Other (i.e., Periodic, Follow-up, Notification, etc.)

5.2 Manufacturing Plant Assessment Reasons

Manufacturing plant assessments are performed by quality and technical


assessors, for new and existing manufacturers, with the following reasons:

 New Manufacturing Used only for assessment of new manufacturing


Plant plants.
 Re-assessment Used to assess previously rejected manufacturing
plant that was never approved before or placed on
QSNA/MTNA UD Code.
 Additional Material Used to introduce new materials to an existing
manufacturer, expand manufacturing plant sizes
without necessarily additional product line, or increase
in quantity of production.
 Periodic Used only for periodic Assessments.

Page 4 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

 Follow-up Used to follow up on pending corrective actions.


 Revise Limitation Used to add, delete, or change in material technical
limitations.
 Delete Material Used when a material is no longer supplied
by/procured from an existing manufacturer.
 Notification Used to conduct unannounced or unscheduled
assessments due to problem(s) identified by Service
Review Committee (SRC), Inspection Representative,
technical entity, or material end user.
 Escalation Used to conduct assessment due to escalation based on
SAEP-397.
 Reinstatement Used to assess re-approving on-hold manufacturer
(QSOH) or on-hold materials (MTOH), assess
re-approving no longer used manufacturer (QZNU),
and assess re-approving Material previously
technically approved temporarily (MTAT).
 Place On Hold Used to place the existing approved manufacturer
On-Hold due to major findings on quality system or
material levels.
 Manufacturing Used to place existing approved manufacturer on
Plant Closure No Longer Used (QZNU) status due to manufacturing
plant closure/ceasing production.
 Manufacturing Used to place existing approved manufacturer on
Plant Relocation No Longer Used (QZNU) status due to Manufacturing
plant relocated to another location.

5.3 Manufacturing Plants Assessment Types

The purpose of assessment is to ensure that manufacturing plants have


implemented an effective quality management system in accordance with
ISO 9001 and that the plants have the technical capabilities to produce products
and equipment that meet Saudi Aramco requirements and specified industry
standards. The manufacturing plant assessment types are:
 Survey: Assessment of manufacturer capabilities for new
manufacturing plants through physical visit.
 Assessment: Assessment of manufacturer capabilities for existing
manufacturing plants through physical visit.
 Desk Review: Assessment of manufacturer capabilities through documents,
certificates, and records review.

Page 5 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

Refer to EXHIBIT I for more information about the request type, reasons, and
assessment type along with the issuing entities.

5.4 Physical Assessment vs. Desk Review

The decision to perform physical assessment versus desk review assessment


shall be determined based on pre-established criteria within the respective
organization in line with EXHIBIT I of this procedure.
Commentary Note:

New manufacturing plants survey shall be conducted through physical


assessment.

6 Registration and Workflow Creation

Proper review shall take place to ensure the following prior to workflow creation:

6.1 SRU to complete the review of all commercial and financial requirements.

6.2 SRU to complete the attachment of all technical requirements as per established
technical screening checklist. This includes but not limited to vendor
compliance letter to Saudi Aramco specifications/standards, past major supply,
major customers list, and technical and quality certifications.
Commentary Note:

Technical screening requirements checklist shall be established and documented


in a published Best Practice by each ES Standards Committee.

6.3 SRU to complete the attachment of all quality requirements folder including
minimum of below documents as applicable:
 Uncontrolled copy of the quality manual
 Copies of the mandatory quality systems procedures as required by
ISO 9001
 Complete organization chart including all QA/QC staff names
 List of key manufacturing equipment at the manufacturing facility
 Number and certifications of welding and NDT QC Inspectors
 Qualification of QA and QC Managers
 Manufacturing plant Capacity
 Manufacturing Area (covered and uncovered)
 Factory location map

Page 6 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

 Copy of valid ISO 9001 certificate


 A completed Saudi Aramco Vendor's Manufacturing Plant Assessment
Questionnaire

6.4 SRU to confirm in writing with the manufacturer their readiness for the
assessment on a specified week. This confirmation is required to allow for
proper planning for the company technical and quality assessments.

6.5 SRU must ensure that the production is running during the confirmed
survey/assessment date.

6.6 SRU shall create Assessment request not less than four (4) weeks before the
manufacturer confirmed assessment week for OOK and not less than one (1)
week for IK manufacturer. This Assessment request will be directed to
Technical and Quality organizations to review the submitted package,
acknowledge the SAP WF, and then allocate the required resources to conduct
the assessment as the specified assessment week.

6.7 Re-triggering of technical and quality assessment request workflows shall be


made automatically in the system on the vendor confirmed assessment week, or
manually by the technical and quality assessors. The triggering of the WF shall
not be more than eight (8) weeks from the confirmed assessment week.

6.8 RIO shall schedule periodic assessment WFs in SAP system. The WF for
periodic assessment will be triggered for quality and technical assessments.
However, the need to conduct the technical assessment will be determined by
the technical unit Supervisor according to pre-established criteria.

6.9 Technical Unit Supervisor (TUS) is allowed to create WF in SAP to add or


modify limitations. The WF will be triggered for technical and quality
assessments. However, the need to conduct the quality assessment will be
determined by RIO according to pre-established criteria.

7 Screening

In Kingdom (IK) manufacturer workflow shall be triggered by SRU in the system to the
technical and quality supervisors to perform the screening review. This includes
assigning assessors/reviewers to review the technical and quality packages content and
attachments against established screening checklists to ensure manufacturer technical
readiness for assessment.
Commentary Note:

Pre-screening meeting should be conducted with new local manufacturers to verify and
support on meeting the quality and technical approval requirements stipulated in ERTQA
(Posted in IKTVA website).

Page 7 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

Out of Kingdom (OOK) Manufacturer workflow shall be triggered in the system to


Sourcing Management Unit (SMU) Supervisor for his concurrence prior to be triggered
in the system.

During the screening review, assessors/reviewers will either Acknowledge or Return the
workflow as follows:

7.1 Acknowledge

This action confirms completeness of the quality and technical requirements.


Once selected, it will trigger two options:
 Wait for Assessment
This option will remove the workflow from the assessor’s/reviewer’s inbox
and will automatically retrigger it to the supervisors inbox on the start of the
confirmed assessment week. The supervisors shall then assign their
respective assessors to conduct the technical or quality assessments.
 Process Immediately
This option will remove the workflow from the assessor’s/reviewer’s inbox
and will automatically retrigger it to the supervisor’s inbox immediately.
The supervisors shall then assign their respective assessors to conduct the
technical or quality assessments.

7.2 Return

This action confirms rejection of the quality and/or technical packages due to
issues with package completeness or manufacturer readiness. Rejection of the
request shall be processed in the system. Once selected, the packages will be
returned to the vendor through SRU for subsequent action.
Commentary Notes:

1- The option to “Wait for Assessment” is intended for assessors to check their workload
and schedule the assessment in their calendar according to the confirmed
assessment week. Alternatively, the assessor(s), through the “Process Immediately”
option, may schedule the assessment earlier in collaboration with the vendor.

2- For Engineering Services’ commodities, VRC prior approval is required before


return option is exercised to reject or cancel a WF for a manufacturer that
completes required documentations submittal and demonstrated readiness for
Company assessment team.

Page 8 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

8 Manufacturing Plant Assessments

The purpose of this section is to highlight the two methods utilized in conducting the
manufacturing plant assessment. Based on the decision requirements of Section 5.4, a
physical or desk review assessment shall be conducted as specified below:

8.1 Physical Assessment

8.1.1 Upon work flow creation and after successful screening, the assessor will
coordinate the manufacturing plant assessment schedule with the
vendor’s representative. This physical assessment may be on the vendor
confirmed assessment week or an earlier agreed upon time with the
vendor:

8.1.1.1 The assessor(s) must ensure that the vendor is manufacturing


the assessed product.

8.1.1.2 The assessor(s) must verify that the production is running


during the survey/assessment, while accounting for personal
safety.

8.1.2 The assessor(s) may share the assessment plan/agenda as part of the
coordination/planning activities. Communication should be initiated in
advance to allow vendor and team members to prepare for the
Assessment.

8.1.3 Upon arrival to the manufacturer’s facility, the assessor(s) shall conduct
an opening meeting introducing the team members, explaining the scope
of the manufacturing plant Assessment (i.e., list of 9COM materials) and
discuss the agenda.

8.1.4 The quality assessment shall be conducted against the requirements of


ISO 9001 including, as applicable, a pre-established quality assessment
checklist and scoring criteria.

8.1.5 The technical assessment shall be conducted according to the internal


guidelines including, as applicable, a pre-established technical
assessment checklist and scoring criteria.
Commentary Note:

For Engineering Services’ commodities, technical assessment shall be


conducted as per established checklist and documented in a published
Best Practice by each Standards Committee.

8.1.6 The minimum passing score for manufacturer quality and technical
assessments is 70%.

Page 9 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

Commentary Note:

Justification for additional material to existing vendors with Vendor


Quality Index (VQI) less than 65% shall be pre-approved in writing by VID
Division Head prior to further processing in SAP.

8.1.7 Objective evidence should be collected through interviews, verification


of documents, records, observations of activities, and product functional
testing.

8.1.8 Nonconformities shall be identified and referenced against the


requirements of specific related standards.

8.1.9 The assessor(s) should ensure that the findings and recommendations are
documented in a clear, concise manner and supported by objective
evidence.

8.1.10 The assessor(s) shall conduct a closing meeting with the manufacturer’s
top management representatives to present the assessment findings.
Vendor Acknowledgement of assessment Findings (EXHIBIT IV) shall be
completed and signed by manufacturer’s top management representative
along with acceptable ETC (90 days maximum) to close the findings.

8.1.11 The assessor(s) is/are not allowed to inform the manufacturer with the
Assessment conclusion. The assessor(s) should explain to the
manufacturer that SRU is the official channel to communicate the
assessment results.

8.2 Desk Review Assessment

Desk review Assessments are conducted without performing physical visit of


manufacturer facility. Desk review assessments are conducted through
reviewing the manufacturer’s quality/technical submittals and historical records
such as EDRs, NCRs, performance of installed equipment, and past assessments
findings closure status.
Commentary Note:

Desk Review is not allowed for new manufacturing plants and survey shall be
conducted through physical assessment.

9 Reporting Manufacturing Plant Assessments

9.1 The assessor(s) shall timely document and report the assessment results along
with the recommendation in the relevant SAP workflow. The assessor(s) shall
prepare and attach to SAP WF the following documents:
1. Compliance letter (EXHIBIT III)

Page 10 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

2. Vendor Acknowledgement Form. (EXHIBIT IV)


3. Assessment report
4. Completed scoring criteria, as applicable
5. VRC Action Request, applicable for ES commodities
6. Photos of the facility, as applicable
7. Applicable Certificates (i.e., ISO, ASME, UL, etc.)
8. Formal letter of relocation, closure, or ceasing production, as applicable.

9.2 For Engineering Services commodities, quality and technical recommendations


shall be peer reviewed. Final recommendation shall be presented by the RIO
Head and Standards Committee Chairman (SCC) to be presented to the Vendor
Review Committee for approval as per the established bylaws.
Commentary Note:

Photos are required for requests for new, reinstatement, and additional material
assessment reasons. The assessor shall take photos of the facility size,
receiving inspection and quarantine areas, testing equipment, storage, and
ongoing manufacturing of the assessed commodity.

9.3 The quality assessor shall process the approval recommendation as per Table 1
for manufacturer’s quality management system.

Table 1 - Quality Management System Recommendations


UD Code UD Code Description Applicability
Survey, Assessment, or Desk Review with no significant quality
QSAA Quality System Approved
findings
Quality System Approved Survey, Assessment or Desk Review with minor quality findings
QSAC
w/corrective action and not impacting the integrity of the product.
The QSNA designation is used for the following cases:
 New manufacturing plant survey where the quality assessor
Quality System NOT- determines existence of major findings that will impact the
QSNA
APPROVED integrity of the product.
 Manufacturing plants with On-Hold status and failed to close
existing major findings.
The QSOH designation is a temporary status used for placing
QSOH Quality System ON-HOLD an existing approved manufacturer On-Hold due to major
findings.
The QZNU designation is used for previously approved vendors
and requires supporting/confirming documentation from SRU:
Quality System No Longer  Manufacturer facility is closed or relocated
QZNU
Used  Manufacturer facility not producing specified 9COM material
 Manufacturer management not interested to do business
with Saudi Aramco
Quality System Approved The QSAT designation is used only if plant will be approved for
QSAT
Temporary exclusively material with MTAT status.

Page 11 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

9.4 The technical assessor(s) shall process the approval recommendation as per
Table 2 for each 9COM in the relevant SAP WF.

Table 2 - Technical Recommendations


UD Code UD Code Description Applicability
Material Technically Survey, Assessment or Desk Review with no significant
MTAA
Approved technical findings
Designation is used for the following cases:
 New manufacturing plant survey where the technical
Material Technically Not assessor determines existence of major findings that will
MTNA
Approved impact the integrity of the product.
 On-Hold Material in which manufacturing plant failed to
remedy existing major findings.
Material Technically On- Designation is temporary status used for placing existing
MTOH
Hold approved material On-Hold due major findings.
Material Technically
MTAL Designation is used when technical limitation(s) exist.
Approved with Limitation
Designation is only used under the following conditions:
Material Technically  Trial orders
MTAT
Approved Temporary  One-time approval (e.g., Project, PO, etc.)
Approval for set time frame

10 Support to Newly Established Local Manufacturers

For newly established local manufacturing plants with no sufficient production


experience, the following approval model may be applied, subject to appropriate line
management approval (i.e., VRC for ES managed 9COMs):

10.1 The approval status of such facilities shall be assigned as temporary (QSAT).

10.2 First PO will be considered as trial and this condition shall be reflected in SAP
“Q-Info” record against each commodity along with applicable technical
limitations (e.g., quantity, size, rating, etc.).

10.3 Inspection Department and relevant Technical Department shall monitor the
performance of the manufacturer during the production of the trial PO and
conduct complete quality and technical assessments. Performance monitoring
can be done through increasing inspection levels, reviewing inspection reports,
attending final inspections/FAT by the technical SME, and/or conducting focus
assessments.

10.4 Quality and Technical assessors will reflect the result of the manufacturer actual
performance monitoring during the trial purchase ordered as well as the
assessment in a SAP MAP WF along with proper recommendation for required
approval.

Page 12 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

10.5 Technical and Quality Assessment teams may elect to conduct a Pre-assessment
to support local manufacturing plants, without WF in coordination with P&SCM
addressed to a Division Head level as minimum.

11 Approval Process Finalization

Assessment recommendation shall be documented, reflected and processed in SAP


through the required approval authority as per EXHIBIT II and below instructions:
 Quality and technical assessors shall process assessment recommendation in SAP
for approval as per 13.3.2 and 13.4.2 in this procedure.
 Assessors recommendations shall be reviewed and processed by RIO Head and TUS
as per Section 13 and Section 13.4 in this procedure.
Commentary Note:

For Engineering Services’ commodities, assessment recommendation shall be


processed after obtaining the Vendor Review Committee approval.

 Final decision on assessment recommendation shall be processed by Quality and


Technical Division Heads (in line with the VRC direction in case of Engineering
Services’ commodities) as per 13.3.3 and 13.4.3 in this procedure.

Upon completion of quality WF and a minimum of one technical WF, combined approval
decision will be automatically reflected in SAP for SRU further communication with the
manufacturer.

12 Approved Suppliers Maintenance

12.1 Periodic Assessment

Periodic assessment of approved manufacturers shall be conducted against


ISO 9001 requirements and other engineering standards (SAEP, SAES, and
SAMSS) as applicable to ensure that the manufacturers continue to maintain
effective quality management system and acceptable technical capabilities.

Assessment frequency and intervals shall be determined based on a pre-


established criteria defined in relevant departmental guidelines and procedures.

12.2 Technical Limitations

Technical limitations shall be written in a clear and concise manner.


The limitation shall be not specify already applicable requirements in referenced
standards or specifications. It is not acceptable to specify any organization by
name within the context of the technical limitation.

Page 13 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

Technical limitation may include product related limitation (i.e., size, thickness,
material type, and system release), scope limitation, machine and product line
capacity.
Commentary Note:

For Engineering Services’ commodities, Technical Limitation shall be written and


specified as per established departmental guidelines.

12.3 Extension of One Time/Temporary Approval

Process for to initiate temporary approvals shall be as stipulated in Saudi


Aramco Procurement Manual. When temporary approval expires in SAP,
quality and technical teams shall assess the technical need to transfer the
approval from temporary to permanent based on the vendor actual performance.
Vendors with demonstrated excellent performance should be recommended to
management (Division Head as a minimum and VRC for ES commodities) for
permanent approval. Vendors with demonstrated unsatisfactory performance
should be recommended to management (Division Head as a minimum and
VRC for ES commodities) for permanent disapproval. The final
recommendation shall be provided to SRU. WFs for permanent approval shall
be created by Supplier Relation Representative.

12.4 Handling of Approval Status of Vendors with 9COMs with Changed Status
(Changed to Deleted/Non-Inspectable Commodities)

When status of inspectable 9COM(s) is changed to non-inspectable or deleted


(DD coded), the following actions shall be taken on the manufacturers linked to
the impacted 9COM(s):

12.4.1 Standards Committee Chairman (SCC) is required to allocate alternative


appropriate 9COM(s) to replace the deleted or non-inspectable one(s).

12.4.2 If there is no alternative for non-inspectable 9COM, the manufacturer


status shall be changed manually to QZNU (no longer used) as long as
the subject 9COM is the only 9COM linked to this manufacturer.
Management approval (Division Head as a minimum and VRC for ES
commodities) is required prior to the manual change.

12.4.3 If there is no alternative for deleted 9COM, the manufacturer status shall
be changed through SAP workflow as QZNU (no longer used) as long as
the subject 9COM is the only 9COM linked to this manufacturer.

12.5 Manufacturers with Unsatisfactory Quality/Technical Performance

Manufacturers with experienced unsatisfactory quality and technical


performance shall be handled as per SAEP-397. Technical and/or Quality

Page 14 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

Departments may create a WF in SAP to place a manufacturer on hold.


Commentary Notes:

On-Hold status is a temporary status in which manufacturer shall complete all


required actions within 12 months. If the manufacturer cleared all issues that
resulted of the On-Hold status, a reinstatement WF can be created by PSCM for
a re-survey based on sourcing requirements. If the manufacturer failed to clear
all issues within 12 months, approval status should be changed to permeant
disapproval following SAP MAP WF process.

All technical and quality on-hold related actions shall be processed through SAP
workflow.

12.6 Handling of Relocating, Ceasing operation/Closing Vendors

In order to ensure governance and not to lose reliable approved manufacturers


due to relocation, it is required to create workflow for vendors with facilities
under relocation, renovation, or ceasing operation provided the following are
met:

12.6.1 Receiving a formal letter from the vendor senior management addressed
to the Procurement appropriate management authority notifying about
the manufacturing facility closure, ceasing production, or relocation.

12.6.2 In case of relocation, the vendor shall indicate as applicable the status of
the new facility readiness and the date it can be fully operational if not
already.

12.6.3 Once the vendor formal notification letter is received, the workflow can
be created by the Procurement team and attach to the workflow the
received vendor letter for further processing.

Approval status of vendor no longer in business shall be changed to QZNU


through SAP workflow to safeguard against receiving any purchase order.

13 Roles and Responsibilities

13.1 Supplier Relation Representative

13.1.1 Review commercial status of the manufacturer.

13.1.2 Verify manufacturer commercial and legal information as applicable.


This includes but not limited to:
13.1.2.1 Basic supplier information
13.1.2.2 Address details

Page 15 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

13.1.2.3 Products/services information


13.1.2.4 Commercial Requirements
13.1.2.5 Copy of articles of association (for companies only)

13.1.3 Review manufacturers’ ownership information for potential or actual


conflict of interest and verifies if owners’ ID number is on the watch
list. Additionally, Supplier Relation Representative shall seek direction
from Personnel Department if potential or actual conflict of interest is
indicated.

13.1.4 Create the Assessment request in SAP as listed in EXHIBIT I.

13.1.5 Confirm with the manufacturer on their readiness on the assessment


week.

13.1.6 Attach technical and quality documentations listed as per 6.2 and 6.3
and check that technical and quality requirements are fulfilled for each
WF.

13.1.7 Attach complete vendor's manufacturing plant Assessment


questionnaire that includes as minimum the following information:
 Vendor Information: name, location, and contacts
 Major Buildings: major buildings and facilities
 Product Information: product, standards and codes, limitation, and
capacity for each requested commodity
 Manpower: personnel details including but not limited to Design,
Production, Quality, and HR
 Process: main production and testing processes
 Sub-Suppliers/Sub-Contractors: details of major product and service
suppliers

13.1.8 Trigger technical and quality Assessment request workflows in line with
paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 of this procedure.

13.1.9 Submit/send official letter to inform the manufacturer on the


Assessment results within one week from completion of WFs.

13.2 Sourcing Supervisor (SS)

P&SCM SMU Supervisor has to review every workflow for OOK


manufacturing plants to ensure compliance to Saudi Aramco Material Sourcing

Page 16 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

List and the Corporate Materials Sourcing Strategy. SMU Supervisor shall
review OOK WFs in order to:
 Concur on each 9COM Material in the SAP WF.
 Reject at least one 9COM or the entire WF as applicable via the system for
failing to comply with the Materials Sourcing List. Justification has to be
given per rejected 9COMs. Only 9COMs approved by SMU Supervisor
shall proceed to the quality and technical supervisors.

Return the entire WF back to SRU to request SRU to add missing materials
worth evaluating, contingent that the manufacturer is legally and physically able
to produce/manufacture the material(s) to be added.

13.3 Quality Responsibilities

13.3.1 RIO Head (IK/OOK)

13.3.1.1 The RIO Head is responsible for receiving manufacturing


plant Assessment requests through SAP.

13.3.1.2 The RIO Head reviews the requests to ensure completeness


and concurs on the Assessment priority and assigns quality
assessor.

13.3.1.3 The RIO Head is responsible for continuously monitoring the


status of all manufacturing plant Assessment requests
assigned to the unit.

13.3.1.4 The RIO Head is responsible for reviewing the final


manufacturing plant Assessment report and recommended
UD prior to release of workflow to the next approver.

13.3.1.5 The RIO Head or his designee shall generate periodic


assessments WFs and create periodic assessments plan to
monitor scheduling and on time completion.

13.3.2 Quality Assessor (QA)

13.3.2.1 The QA shall not begin any facility physical assessment if


SAP Assessment Request has not been initiated.

13.3.2.2 The QA will receive and review the manufacturer’s quality


management system documentation in order to become
thoroughly familiar with the manufacturer’s quality
management system. Documents reviewed should include, at

Page 17 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

a minimum; manufacturing plant Assessment questionnaire,


manufacturer’s QMS main documentation. Additional
documents, such as manufacturer procedures and work
instructions, can be reviewed as deemed necessary by the
QA.

13.3.2.3 Assessment requests with missing essential information shall


be returned in SAP as per Section 7.

13.3.2.4 For all Assessments, other than new vendors, the QA should
review the vendor’s records in SAP including previous
Assessments, inspection lots for previous 60 months purchase
orders, Q-Info records for material limitations, and previous
24 months of quality notifications including the following:
F4: Assessment Findings
Q4: Equipment Deficiency Report (EDR)
Q5: Rejection Notice
Q8: Nonconformance Report (NCR)
Q9: Worksheet
Commentary Note:

Theses notifications are used to record quality findings


during different stages of production. They can be accessed
per each existing manufacturing plant number using SAP
transaction; QM11, ZQ0025.

13.3.2.5 The QA shall conduct the manufacturing plant assessment as


per Section 8.

13.3.2.6 The QA shall complete all reporting requirements as per


Section 9.

13.3.2.7 The QA shall record assessment results and process the


quality recommendation in SAP.

13.3.2.8 For QSAC approvals, the QA shall follow-up with the


manufacturer to ensure proper closure of the findings. If the
manufacturer failed to close the findings within the agreed
upon date in the closing form, the assessor shall trigger the
escalation process as per SAEP-397.

13.3.3 Vendor Inspection Division Head

During final approval stage for quality assessment, VID Head is

Page 18 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

responsible to review the quality report and approve quality assessment


recommendation in the related SAP WF.
Commentary Note:

For Engineering Services’ commodities, WF shall be processed after and


as per Vendor Review Committee endorsement.

13.4 Technical Responsibilities

13.4.1 Technical Unit Supervisor (TUS)

13.4.1.1 The TUS is responsible for receiving manufacturing plant


Assessment requests through SAP/PRC. The supervisor or
respective unit SMEs (e.g., SCC) reviews the requests to
ensure completeness and assigns technical assessor for each
9COM as applicable.

13.4.1.2 The TUS is responsible for continuously monitoring the


status of all manufacturing plant Assessment requests
assigned to the unit.

13.4.1.3 The TUS is responsible for reviewing the final manufacturing


plant Assessment report and prior to release of workflow to
the next approver.

13.4.2 Technical Assessor (TA)

13.4.2.1 TA is responsible for performing technical assessment of


manufacturers and products.

13.4.2.2 TA is responsible to review the WF to ensure all the required


documents are available. In addition, TA shall identify and
select potential 9COMs applicable to the manufacturer based
on the provided technical documents.

13.4.2.3 During manufacturing plant survey stage, TA is responsible


for the following:
 Coordinate and conduct manufacturing plant visit.
 Assess manufacturer’s engineering and fabrication
capabilities and identify deficiencies.
 Complete manufacturing plant assessment checklist.
 Complete Vendor Acknowledgement Form.
 Prepare and sign technical report.

Page 19 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

 Discuss technical report with SCC.


 TA shall attach the technical report in SAP (refer to
Section 9) and fill the following fields as applicable for
each 9COM:
 Remarks: Summary of technical decision.
 Capacity: Manufacturer production capacity.
 Limitation: Manufacturer technical limitation.

13.4.2.4 OOK Offices technical assessors shall perform the


manufacturing plant assessment, if instructed by the
responsible technical department as per paragraph 6.7 and
answers clarifications from SCC and modify the reports as
required.

13.4.3 Technical Division Head (TDH)

During final approval of technical assessment, Technical Division Head


is responsible to review the technical report and approve technical
assessment recommendation in related SAP WF(s).
Commentary Note:

For Engineering Services’ commodities, WF shall be processed after and


as per Vendor Review Committee approval.

14 Exhibits
EXHIBIT I ASSESSMENT REQUEST MATRIX
EXHIBIT II PLANT ASSESSMENT PROCESS MAP IN SAP
EXHIBIT III VENDOR COMPLIANCE LETTER
EXHIBIT IV VENDOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
FORM

Revision Summary
14 November 2017 New Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure that defines the minimum requirements and
roles and responsibilities to assess technical and quality capabilities of new and existing
manufacturing plants to supply Saudi Aramco facilities and projects with inspectable
commodities (9COMs).

Page 20 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

EXHIBIT I: ASSESSMENT REQUEST MATRIX

Assessment Assessment
Initiator Assessment Type
Request Type Request Reason
New Manufacture Supplier Relations New Manufacturing Plant Survey
Plant Unit Reassessment Survey
Assessment, or
Revise Limitation
Update Existing Supplier Relations Desk Review*
Manufacturer Plant Unit Additional Material Assessment
Reinstatement Survey
Delete Material
Manufacturing Plant Closure
Supplier Relations Assessment, or
Delink Manufacturing Plant
Unit Desk Review*
Relocation
Place On Hold
Supplier Relations
One Time Approval New Manufacturing Plant Survey
Unit
Periodic Assessment
Notification
Technical and/or Assessment, or
Other Escalation
Quality Unit Desk Review*
Follow Up on Pending
Corrective Actions

*The decision to conduct physical visit or desk review is determined as per pre-established criteria by the organization
responsible to perform the Assessment

Page 21 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

EXHIBIT II: MANUFACTURING PLANT ASSESSMENT PROCESS MAP IN SAP

*For Assessment requests with type “Other”, workflow will start in the “Screening and Assessor Assignment” stage.
**WFs with Periodic Assessments as Assessment reasons are excluded if the Assessment results do not require change in the
approval status on quality and/or 9COM(s) level.

Page 22 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

EXHIBIT III: VENDOR COMPLIANCE LETTER

To: “Procurement & Supply Chain Management Representative”

We (Company Name, Manufacturer Number: 3XXXXX) confirm that our manufacturing plant
has the full capability to manufacture below commodities and equipment and will strictly
comply with the flowing Saudi Aramco requirements:

S/N 9COM & Description SAES SAMSS 175 From


6XXXXX
1
Description
2

CEO or Most Senior Management (Only)

Signature: ___________________

Page 23 of 24
Document Responsibility: Project Quality Standards Committee SAEP-85
Issue Date: 14 November 2017
Next Planned Update: 14 November 2020 Suppliers Assessment and Approval

EXHIBIT IV: VENDOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS FORM

Engineering Services
Vendor Acknowledgement of Assessment Findings

Manufacturing Assessment Assessment


Manufacturer Name
Plant ID Request No. Date

9COM # 9COM Description

Assessment Type Technical Quality


Assessor(s)
(Please print the name)

Findings

Acknowledgement
Corrective Action Implementation Date

Management Representative
Signature Date
(Please print the name)

Page 24 of 24