Templates and records · IATF 16949 · Clause 6.1.2.3

IATF 16949 supply contingency plan template

An automotive customer cannot stop a line because a press breaks down at the supplier’s plant. The contingency plan describes how supply continues when something goes wrong.

In one sentence

The supply contingency plan identifies the risks that could interrupt production —failure of key equipment, loss of external supply, natural disasters, fire, utility outages, cyberattacks—, defines how to keep delivering to the customer in each case and how to notify them, and is tested and reviewed at least once a year, as IATF 16949 requires in clause 6.1.2.3, which also calls for it to be documented and the history of its revisions retained.

Content reviewed on 17 October 2026

Where the standard requires it: IATF 16949 · Clause 6.1.2.3 Clauses are those of IATF 16949:2016, which always applies together with ISO 9001:2015. The AIAG and VDA manuals cited are industry references that apply when the customer requires them; they are not part of the standard.
Type of information: Mandatory document Documented plan to be maintained; its revisions are retained (6.1.2.3)
Who fills it in: Multidisciplinary team Production, maintenance, purchasing, logistics, IT and quality, with top management
When: Reviewed at least annually With periodic testing of its effectiveness; also after any real interruption
How long it is kept: Current, with its history The standard requires information to be retained on each revision and on who authorised the change

What the standard requires

What IATF 16949 demands and what it leaves to your judgement

The standard requires internal and external risks to the manufacturing processes and infrastructure equipment needed to maintain production to be identified and evaluated, and plans to be prepared according to risk and impact for situations such as key equipment failure, interruption of externally provided products or services, recurring natural disasters, fire, utility interruptions or labour shortages.

The plan must include how the customer and other interested parties are notified of the extent and duration of the situation, be tested periodically —with simulations where appropriate—, be reviewed at least annually and be updated by a multidisciplinary team that includes top management.

It also requires validation that the product continues to conform when production restarts after an emergency stop, if the regular start-up process could not be followed.

Read it in context: Planning, in the IATF 16949 Academy

Structure

Fields the template should include

Critical process, line or equipment, and customer affected
Risk of interruption, likelihood and impact
Maximum period without supply the customer can tolerate
Existing preventive measures
Response plan: alternative manufacturing, safety stock, alternative supplier
Person responsible for activating the plan, and contacts
Customer notification: who, when and with what information
Product validation when production restarts
Date and result of the last test
Revision history and who authorised each revision

Example

Example: breakdown of the main stamping press

Company, people and figures are fictitious: the example only shows what a properly completed record looks like.

Field	Content
Equipment	Press P-800 · 70% of the sheet metal part numbers for customer OEM-B (fictitious)
Risk	Crankshaft failure: no spare in stock, 6-week lead time from the manufacturer
Customer tolerance	The customer holds 3 days of stock at its plant
Response	5 days of safety stock in the warehouse; dies approved on press P-630 for 12 part numbers; agreement with an external stamper approved by the customer for the rest
Customer notification	Customer quality reports within 4 hours via the customer portal, with scope and estimated duration
Restart	First part with full dimensional check and release by quality
Test	Simulation on 12 February 2026: 3 part numbers moved to P-630 in 9 hours against 12 planned
Review	Version 4 approved by management on 20 February 2026

At the audit

Mistakes auditors commonly flag

A generic plan copied from another plant, without the actual equipment or customers.
It has never been tested: there is no record of any simulation.
It does not say how or when the customer is notified.
The annual review consists of changing the date on the cover.
The IT systems that planning and shipping depend on are left out.

In Kimobox

How this record is kept in Kimobox

1The contingency plan is documented as one more record, with its periodic test scheduled.
2An alert goes out ahead of the planned test date, and the result is captured in the same record.
3Each revision is versioned along with who approved it.
4Weaknesses found in a test become actions with an owner and a deadline.

Frequently asked questions

What people ask us before getting started

Is a plan needed for every piece of equipment?

Not necessarily. The standard calls for plans according to risk and impact on the customer. The usual approach is to prioritise equipment and processes with no alternative, and group the rest into plans by type of interruption.

How is a contingency plan tested?

Through simulations: moving a part number to another machine, activating an alternative supplier or rehearsing systems recovery. The standard says “as appropriate”; a plan that has never been tested is unlikely to convince the auditor.

Is it the same as a business continuity plan?

Its purpose is similar, but it focuses on supply to the automotive customer. A company with a general continuity plan can use it as a basis if it covers the scenarios and the customer notification IATF requires.

Keep your IATF 16949 records without loose templates

We'll show you the module running with data similar to yours.

Request a demo

Keep exploring

Sources

Where each figure comes from

References to the official text in force. If a standard is revised, this page is updated and the review date says so.

IATF 16949:2016 — Quality management system requirements for automotive production and relevant service parts organizations IATF · First edition, October 2016
IATF 16949 Sanctioned Interpretations and FAQs IATF Global Oversight · Continuously updated