Per-MW pricing, regional variance, and cost drivers for owners scoping hyperscale & AI builds.
Salary benchmarks across the 14 mission-critical disciplines.
A completed FAIR does not authorize shipment or government acceptance. I start with the contract: confirm the required AS9102 revision, inspection scope, and approval path before making the first article.
Here’s how I keep the requirements separate:
Before release, I check traceability, resolve discrepancies through the required process, and verify customer or government approvals. The rule is simple: inspection documentation and <u>release authority</u> are separate.
Defense FAI Workflow: AS9102 Documentation to Authorized Release
Once the contract baseline is set, determine whether the change calls for a full or partial FAI.
Before setting the scope, check the contract-required AS9102 revision and any customer flowdowns. Then compare the existing FAIR with the approved drawing and actual production process. [1][2]
Initial production requires a full FAI. Changes to the design, manufacturing source or site, tooling or program, and material or special process may qualify for a partial FAI - but only if the baseline FAIR still matches the approved drawing and actual production process, and the change affects specific characteristics only. [2]
A two-year production lapse typically triggers a full FAI. [2]
For a partial FAI, record the baseline report number, the reason for the change, and the affected characteristics. Keep evidence showing that unchanged characteristics still comply. [2]
For no new FAI, keep a written justification explaining why the existing report still represents the current design and actual production process. If the scope is unclear, get written customer or DCMA QAR concurrence before release. [2]
Once the scope is set, document the results on Forms 1–3 with objective evidence.
Forms 1–3 document part, product, and characteristic traceability. Track customer-specific requirements, such as Boeing D6-82479 or Lockheed QCS-001, separately from the AS9102 forms. [1][3]
Once the scope is set, use these forms to record objective evidence.
Record the part number, name, revision, and controlled drawing or digital product definition (DPD) dataset. Check that the configuration matches the approved engineering baseline.
Document the material specification and revision, heat/lot/batch traceability data, and required processor approvals - including NADCAP where required. Link every certificate and test report to the specific article. This includes material, weld, heat-treat, NDT, and test records. [1]
Use ballooned drawings or a requirement index to identify each applicable dimension, tolerance, and note. Record actual measured results and connect each characteristic to its verification method. Include calibration IDs for CMM and hand-gauge results. [1][3]
Link each nonconformance to its approved disposition, and do not mark it compliant. The supplier, prime, and DCMA review this record set before release. [1][3]
DCMA Quality Assurance Representatives (QARs) provide resident or delegated oversight, as assigned. Before scheduling the first article, confirm who reviews the FAIR, coordinates inspections, and holds acceptance authority. [1]
Completion of Forms 1–3 marks the handoff for review, witness points, and acceptance authority. Use the matrix below to send the FAIR to the right reviewer and avoid late rework.
Assign one owner to each handoff based on the contract. Verify that staff have the required skills in GD&T, CMM programming, calibration, and counterfeit-parts control. Engineering and quality assignments also need clear responsibility for configuration control. [1]
Once roles are assigned, confirm the contract’s notification period and witness points before the source review. This helps avoid scheduling delays. Have both the first article and the FAIR package ready for review.
Send the package to the authority responsible for customer approval, government acceptance, or production-readiness review. Government acceptance may be documented with a DD Form 250. Production-readiness review uses qualification results and yield data. [1]
Handle discrepancies through the approved disposition process. Keep the part, engineering decisions, and submitted records aligned. DCMA may issue corrective action requests for systemic failures. [1]
Use this checklist to turn the contract baseline and AS9102 forms into a release-ready FAIR package.
Before building the FAIR, check the contract, PO, quality clauses, supplier requirements, and applicable AS9102 revision. Record the FAI trigger, full or partial scope, configuration, and manufacturing location. Assign an owner for each piece of evidence before work starts. For a partial FAI, identify the baseline FAIR and explain why unaffected characteristics remain valid.[4][6]
Verify approved material and special-process sources, equipment calibration, and customer or DCMA witness points before work begins. Make the part using the intended production process. Maintain heat, lot, and process traceability, record measured results in the contract-required units, and link each discrepancy to a controlled nonconformance record.
When the inspection package is complete, route it through the required approval path.
Check the FAIR package. Form 1 identifies the inspected part and configuration. Form 2 links materials, special processes, and tests to certificates and test reports. Form 3 records every applicable drawing or model requirement.[7] Check attachment identifiers, partial-FAI baseline references, revision consistency, signatures, dates, and required calibration evidence. Use the contract-required date format.
Submit through the specified channel, track review comments, and make corrections in the controlled FAIR package. Keep a separate release record that names the authorizing person, governing contract or procedure, date, and restrictions.
Before restricted production or shipment, verify all required customer or prime approvals and DCMA approvals. Retain records for the applicable period. A completed FAIR does not authorize release.[10][11][12]
Before submission, have an independent, qualified quality reviewer check for missing or inconsistent evidence, including:
This final quality review helps catch gaps before the package reaches the reviewer.[5][8][9] Reconcile the ballooned drawing with Forms 2–3 and the attachments. Give each open item an owner and due date. Close it only with objective evidence or an authorized disposition.
Resolve the discrepancy in writing before committing to the work [1]. Contractual requirements take priority over AS9102’s general framework because customer flowdowns and quality clauses define your legal obligations [1].
Don’t rely on past practices or assumptions. Get the customer’s formal, written agreement on which requirements apply before production begins. This helps ensure your inspection process and documentation match the contract [1].
You can use a supplier’s FAIR if it meets your contractual requirements and AS9102 and matches your assembly’s exact part number, revision, and configuration.
Check the objective evidence, including material and process certifications, and verify that the report covers every drawing characteristic. Also confirm that the supplier’s quality system and process approvals are current and apply to your site and work package.
Incomplete reports or those that don’t meet contract requirements won’t satisfy acceptance requirements and may delay production readiness.
Yes. An unresolved nonconformance can block shipment in defense and aerospace programs. It must go through a formal Material Review Board (MRB) process, which may require customer-authorized use-as-is, repair, or a formal waiver [1][2].
The product cannot be cleared for delivery without a documented disposition or resolution of open nonconformance reports. Failure to manage these issues can result in stop-ship orders or DCMA withdrawal of delegated inspection authority [1][2].
