PPAP, the Production Part Approval Process, is how an automotive supplier shows a customer that its production process can make a part to the design record, consistently, at the planned rate. The process is defined in a manual published by the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), and almost every vehicle manufacturer then adds its own customer-specific requirements on top.
This guide covers the 18 elements, the five submission levels, what the Part Submission Warrant certifies and which changes usually trigger a new submission. It is written for UK suppliers, buyers and quality engineers who need to plan a submission or review one, and it points to the official documents that should settle any disagreement.
What the approval process is for and which edition applies
AIAG describes its PPAP manual as the industry standard for production part approval. Its purpose is to confirm that the supplier understands the engineering design record and specification requirements, and that the process can meet them during an actual production run at quoted rates. The manual sets the minimum a supplier must document and submit before it is approved to ship production quantities.
The edition in use is the fourth. AIAG’s current printing is the 4th edition, 2nd printing, which incorporates an errata sheet dated 19 July 2006 and, according to AIAG, adds no new requirements. Customers still reference the fourth edition directly: Ford’s requirements, effective 15 June 2026, are written as a supplement to it.
The process sits inside the wider quality system. IATF 16949:2016, which replaced ISO/TS 16949:2009 according to the IATF, includes a product approval clause, and GM’s customer-specific requirements under that clause, 8.3.4.4, state that suppliers shall comply with the AIAG manual.
The 18 elements of a submission
A full package contains 18 elements, although not every element is needed for every submission. The list below follows the AIAG structure as summarised by Quality-One.
| No. | Element | What it shows |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Design records | The drawing or model the part is made to |
| 2 | Engineering change documents | Authorised changes not yet on the design record |
| 3 | Customer engineering approval | Evidence the customer’s engineers have signed off where required |
| 4 | Design FMEA | Design risks, where the supplier is design responsible |
| 5 | Process flow diagram | Every step from receipt to dispatch |
| 6 | Process FMEA | Process risks and their controls |
| 7 | Control plan | How each characteristic is controlled in production |
| 8 | Measurement system analysis | Whether gauges can be trusted |
| 9 | Dimensional results | Measured results against the design record |
| 10 | Material and performance test records | Evidence of material and functional compliance |
| 11 | Initial process studies | Early capability of the process |
| 12 | Qualified laboratory documentation | Scope and competence of the labs used |
| 13 | Appearance approval report | Colour, grain and finish, where relevant |
| 14 | Sample production parts | Parts from the production run |
| 15 | Master sample | A retained reference part |
| 16 | Checking aids | Fixtures and gauges specific to the part |
| 17 | Customer-specific requirements | Evidence of compliance with the customer’s own rules |
| 18 | Part Submission Warrant | The signed summary of the package |
Several elements depend on one another. A control plan that does not match the process FMEA, or dimensional results taken with a gauge whose measurement system analysis is weak, will usually stall approval. Our article on resolving dimensional inspection disagreements covers that measurement question in more detail.
The five PPAP submission levels
The submission level decides what is physically sent to the customer and what is kept at the supplier’s site for review. Quality-One summarises them as follows:
- Level 1: Part Submission Warrant only, submitted to the customer.
- Level 2: warrant with product samples and limited supporting data.
- Level 3: warrant with product samples and complete supporting data.
- Level 4: warrant and other requirements as defined by the customer.
- Level 5: warrant with product samples and complete supporting data available for review at the supplier’s manufacturing location.
Whatever the level, the supplier is expected to hold the full set of records. The level changes what the customer inspects, not what the supplier must be able to produce. Requirements are usually agreed during quoting, and some manufacturers set the level through their own processes; Ford, for example, directs suppliers to its Phased PPAP Handbook for level and warrant requirements.
The Part Submission Warrant
The warrant is the document both parties sign. According to Quality-One it states the reason for submission and the level submitted, and carries a declaration that the parts conform, the authorised supplier signature and an area for the customer’s disposition. One warrant is normally required for each part number unless the customer agrees otherwise.
Customer rules can change the form of the warrant. Ford’s customer-specific requirements for production part approval make an electronic warrant the default, allow several part numbers from one family on a single warrant with prior agreement, and state that production quantities may not ship until PPAP and functional trial approval (or a waiver) are obtained, or an approved deviation authorises interim shipment. Stellantis’s CSR summary notes that its warrant is held in an IT system and is not signed by Stellantis.
When PPAP resubmission is triggered
The general rule is that a submission is required for a new part and for approval of any change to an existing part or process, and that the customer can ask for a submission at any time during the product’s life. The exact triggers are set by each customer. Ford’s June 2026 requirements list these cases:
- new tooled parts;
- design changes to existing parts, including running changes on vehicles in production;
- changes to the supplier’s operating pattern;
- manufacturing process changes after approval;
- added or modified production tooling or equipment;
- required capacity that exceeds the supplier’s verified capacity.
Approval also creates ongoing duties. GM’s customer-specific requirements (October 2025) require an annual layout of all design record dimensions on at least five parts throughout the product’s life after approval. A supplier that relocates or refurbishes tooling should treat it as a likely PPAP event and agree the evidence with the customer first; see our guide to tooling ownership and transfer readiness. Change control on the shop floor is the internal half of the same discipline, as our article on automotive engineering change control explains. The IATF publishes each manufacturer’s current requirements on its customer-specific requirements page.
Key points for suppliers and buyers
- PPAP proves that a production process, run at rate, can meet the design record; it is not a one-off sample check.
- The fourth edition of the AIAG manual remains the base document, supplemented by each manufacturer’s customer-specific requirements.
- All 18 elements should exist on file, even when the submission level asks for less.
- The warrant is a signed certification, so its reason for submission must match the actual change.
- Treat any design, process, tooling, location or capacity change as a possible resubmission and check the customer’s current requirements before acting.
Sources
- AIAG: Production Part Approval Process (PPAP-4) manual
- Quality-One: Production Part Approval Process (PPAP)
- IATF: About IATF 16949:2016
- IATF: OEM customer-specific requirements
- Ford Motor Company: Customer specific requirements for PPAP, effective 15 June 2026
- General Motors: Customer specific requirements for IATF 16949, October 2025
- Stellantis: CSR summary, July 2026
Sources checked in November 2026. Rules, rates and schemes can change after publication, so check the linked official pages before acting.
