03.20

Foreward

International standards for humanitarian demining programmes were first proposed by working groups at an international technical conference in Denmark, in July 1996. Criteria were prescribed for all aspects of demining, standards were recommended and a new universal definition of ‘clearance’ was agreed. In late 1996, the principles proposed in Denmark were developed by a UN-led working group and the International Standards for Humanitarian Mine Clearance Operations were developed. A first edition was issued by the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in March 1997.

The scope of these original standards has since been expanded to include the other components of mine action and to reflect changes to operational procedures, practices and norms. The standards were re-developed and renamed as International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) with the first edition produced in October 2001.

The United Nations has a general responsibility for enabling and encouraging the effective management of mine action programmes, including the development and maintenance of standards. UNMAS, therefore, is the office within the United Nations responsible for the development and maintenance of IMAS. IMAS are produced with the assistance of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.

The work of preparing, reviewing and revising IMAS is conducted by technical committees, with the support of international, governmental and non-governmental organisations. The latest version of each standard, together with information on the work of the technical committees, can be found at http://www.mineactionstandards.org/. Individual IMAS are reviewed at least every three years to reflect developing mine action norms and practices and to incorporate changes to international regulations and requirements.

 

Introduction

This standard provides a conceptual overview of the step-by-step procurement process for mine action equipment and gives guidance on the appropriate application of such a process. Detailed guidance on the preparation and management of the principal documentation that supports the procurement process is also provided with examples.

The process that leads to the procurement and subsequent use of equipment in mine action projects and programmes, consists of a number of definite stages and decisions. These are explained in this standard.

1. Scope

This standard provides a conceptual overview of the ideal procurement process and provides guidelines for its application.

2. References

A list of normative references is given in Annex A. Normative references are important documents to which reference is made in this standard and which form part of the provisions of this standard.

3. Terms, definitions and abbreviations

A complete glossary of all the terms, definitions and abbreviations used in the IMAS series of standards is given in IMAS 04.10.

In the IMAS series of standards, the words 'shall', 'should' and 'may' are used to indicate the intended degree of compliance. This use is consistent with the language used in ISO standards and guidelines:

1. 'shall' is used to indicate requirements, methods or specifications that are to be applied in order to conform to the standard;
2. 'should' is used to indicate the preferred requirements, methods or specifications; and
3. 'may' is used to indicate a possible method or course of action.

4. The procurement process

4.1. Introduction

The ideal procurement process is shown diagrammatically at Annex B. In theory, every equipment project should pass through each stage of the process sequentially. In practice, the process is flexible, and some stages will overlap or may even be omitted, particularly in the case of small projects with limited engineering risk. Each project will be different and should be treated on its merits.

The procurement of mine action equipment can be decentralised, with maximum participation from the User, industry and the donor community. There should be a continuous dialogue between the stakeholders to ensure the early fielding of appropriate, affordable and safe equipment.

4.2. Concept formulation

Concept Formulation is the first stage of the Procurement Process, and covers the period of the emergence of the idea for a project to the initial statement of operational need. Ideas will crystallise from the constant interplay of the Users, programme management staff, donors, industry, academia and the military community. Some of the factors that contribute towards the emergence of an idea include:

1. the need to replace inadequate and/or obsolete equipment for reasons of safety and/or cost-effectiveness;
2. a change in policy or procedures requiring a new or modified capability;
3. new or re-defined mine or ERW hazards, including unexploded sub-munitions;
4. a technological advance - which provides a new or modified capability;
5. a proposal by industry, developed principally for profit; and
6. a proposal from academia, possibly derived from research related to a different application.

Concept Formulation should end with a preliminary statement of the operational need (SON), prepared by the originator of the idea or by a Sponsor acting on behalf of the originator. The SON should be a broad statement of operational needs based on an assessment of current capabilities and predicted future requirements. It should not be too prescriptive at this early stage in the procurement process, as that could limit the range of possible solutions. The format and management of SONs are discussed in Annex C.

At this stage in the procurement process an attempt should be made by UNMAS to establish whether the SON is based on a local operational need or whether it has a wider and more universal application. For global equipment requirements it may be appropriate for UNMAS, or an agency acting on behalf of UNMAS, to become the project Sponsor.

4.3. Analysis and articulation of the equipment requirement

4.3.1. Preliminary study

Once a need has been identified, a Preliminary Study should be carried out by the project Sponsor. Its purpose is to give an indication of the practicability of the idea in terms of technological possibilities and cost. The study should be no more than a mind-clearing exercise to assist the Sponsor to draft the Statement of Tasks and Output (STO), although expert advice should be sought as required.

During the Preliminary Study consideration should be given to the integration of any new equipment into current mine action activities, the requirements for operating procedures and the conditions (organisational, environment, infrastructure, availability of support etc.) that the equipment would be required to operate in.

For some equipment projects a Preliminary Study alone may not be sufficient. In these cases Technology Demonstrator Programmes (TDPs) should be considered. These bridge the gap between successful research and specific project developments. Their purpose is to reduce the project cost, risk and time by demonstrating, in advance of project development, that technology can be translated into operationally effective systems. They are particularly relevant when there would be substantial risk in development or when the User needs convincing of the potential value of innovative or revolutionary technology. Funding for TDPs may present a problem at this early stage of a project, before a consensus has been achieved on the need, application and affordability.

4.3.2. Statement of Tasks and Output (STO)

The STO should be prepared by the Sponsor based on the findings of the Preliminary Study. Its purpose is to articulate the User's needs in broad terms, giving the tasks of the equipment and the key characteristics, with the emphasis on the output required rather than the means of achieving it, so as to enable full consideration of alternative solutions. The STO should explain the anticipated concept of use of the equipment including how the equipment is going to be integrated into current mine action activities, its general operating procedures and the conditions that the equipment would be expected to operate in. It should define the target parameters of the equipment solution, such as the critical weight and dimensions (for transportation), workforce constraints, (gender, numbers and skills available), in-service date and predicted life span. The format and management of STOs are discussed in Annex D.

4.3.3. Feasibility Studies (FS)

When the STO has been fully prepared, circulated and comments analysed, the Sponsor should make a decision on whether or not to proceed. For small equipment projects involving minimal costs and engineering risk, it may be possible to proceed directly to the development stage or even to an evaluation of OTS equipment. Otherwise it shall be necessary to carry out a FS. The purpose of a FS is to establish the feasibility of the STO in terms of technology, cost and time. In addition, a FS should:

1. address the alternative solutions, showing the advantages and disadvantages of each in terms of performance, availability, reliability and cost, and identify the key problem areas;
2. produce an outline development plan;
3. estimate the likely workforce requirements and training implications; and
4. estimate the life cycle ownership and operating costs.

The cost and duration of the FS shall depend upon the degree of engineering risk. Typically, for a major project, the cost may be 0.5% of the total predicted development cost and a duration 6-9 months. In some cases, particularly where advanced techniques are proposed, experimental and practical work may be needed to confirm the theory and this will increase both the time and cost of the FS.

4.3.4. Statement of Requirement (SOR)

Based on the findings of the FS, the Sponsor should develop the STO into a Statement of Requirement (SOR). The SOR provides a detailed statement of the characteristics and performance expected of the equipment, based on the preferred solution. It provides those concerned with endorsing the project (be it at local, national or international level) with a full justification of the requirement, and a statement of estimated costs, technical factors and timings, as a basis for a decision on whether or not to proceed. The SOR also provides industry with sufficient detail for design work to be undertaken (or modification to be made to OTS equipment) including the need to satisfy all relevant standards.

At this stage it is vital that the Sponsor makes a clear distinction between essential requirements and desirable requirements. This distinction is important during the design and development stage when there is a need to focus on the essential requirements, sometimes at the expense of the desirable requirements. Failure to draw a clear distinction at this stage may result in a solution that is 'over-specified'; this invariably leads to additional costs and risk.

It is also necessary at this stage to make a clear distinction between generic requirements (i.e. the performance and environmental characteristics which will be common to all planned uses of the equipment) and local needs, (i.e. the performance and characteristics which reflect local environmental conditions, operating procedures and operational requirements). The aim should be to maximise the generic requirements. Wherever possible, the local requirements should be met by relatively simple adjustments or modifications to major assemblies (e.g. raising or lowering the ground clearance of vehicles), by the addition of appliqué sub-assemblies (e.g. adding ceramic armour against shaped-charge anti-tank mines) or by software changes (e.g. optimising the performance of sensors against the local mine or ERW including unexploded sub-munitions hazards). The format and management of SORs are discussed in Annex E.

4.4. Development, testing and evaluation

The Development stage is normally further divided into a number of sequential activities and decisions which together provide effective management control of the project, particularly over costs and engineering risk. For most mine action equipment projects, two principal groups of activities can be identified: Preliminary Development (PD) and Full Development (FD).

4.4.1. Preliminary Development (PD)

PD involves the planning, design and engineering work necessary to explore areas of technical uncertainty and to provide detailed estimates of duration and cost before the decision to proceed to Full Development (FD) is made. During PD a relatively flexible relationship shall exist between the technical specification and the operational requirements. The aims of PD are:

1. to verify the scientific and technical approaches identified during earlier feasibility studies, including the identification and investigation of high risk areas and problems that need to be overcome prior to FD;
2. to analyse the possible trade-offs between performance, cost, in-use logistic support and manpower issues (numbers, qualifications and training needs). This may necessitate changes to the SOR; and
3. to provide a realistic assessment of the cost and duration of FD, including trials and evaluation.

PD is normally undertaken by industry. For those equipment projects that originate from industry or academia, then the PD is likely to be conducted and funded by the originator. For other projects, funding may need to be identified and a contractor selected by the Sponsor, normally as a result of competitive tendering.

The depth and scope of PD depends on the size, complexity, degree of engineering risk and cost of the project. Indeed, for major projects it may be necessary to split PD into phases, with a review being conducted by the Sponsor at the end of each phase. This progressive approach allows close scrutiny of the development and minimises the commitment of funds during the period of greatest uncertainty.

The output of PD should be a comprehensive report prepared by the PD contractor, addressing the aims previously defined. This shall include detailed proposals for FD of the preferred technical solution, with risks quantified, and outline proposals for subsequent production, in-use logistic support and special training.

The Sponsor shall evaluate the PD report, if necessary with the assistance of independent technical experts. It is also possible at this stage that the Sponsor may need to make changes to the SOR based on lessons learned from the PD.

4.4.2. Full Development (FD)

FD involves all the engineering processes, trials and tests to establish the detailed final design to enable full production to commence. This should include the manufacture of models, prototypes and in some cases pre-production equipment for User field trials. It should include the preparation of all necessary information, drawings, full logistic support in the form of handbooks, documentation, generic operating procedures, spares, test equipment, tools and a full User training package. It should also involve the necessary tests, trials and evaluation leading to Acceptance and/or Certification of the equipment.

4.4.2.1. Test and Evaluation (T&E)

The purpose of a trial is to gather quantitative data. Whenever practicable, the quantity of data provided should be sufficient in statistical terms to ensure that the results have not arisen from chance. The data can thus be used with confidence to support valid conclusions and recommendations.

T&E of equipment should be conducted to prove and/or confirm system performance, or sub-system (component) performance before incorporation into new or modified equipment. The requirements, categories, conduct and management of T&E are discussed in detail in IMAS 03.40 Test and evaluation.

4.4.2.2. Acceptance

The Sponsor is responsible for 'accepting' the equipment as suitable for use in mine action, having been satisfied through T&E that it meets the User requirement, as defined in the SOR, or if there are shortcomings that these are acceptable. Provisional acceptance may be given by the Sponsor pending the correction of identified problems. National acceptance restricts the equipment to national use only. Local acceptance restricts the equipment to local use only.

4.4.2.3. Certification

'Certification' is a particular form of acceptance normally initiated by an equipment manufacturer, (i.e. when a manufacturer has identified a potential requirement, has designed and developed a product, and seeks certification that it meets the predicted performance, satisfies the appropriate standards, is reliable and safe). Certification should normally be conducted at an approved T&E establishment. (See IMAS 03.40 Test and evaluation). The manufacturer may be required to meet the full costs of certification, assisted as appropriate by donors or private venture funding.

4.4.2.4. Production

Planning for production is a key part of FD. This is essential not only to enable a smooth transition from development to production, but also to ensure that the final product is suitable for field use. Before the commencement of full production, development should have proceeded to the point where there is sufficient confidence that a standard acceptable to the User can be achieved. Resources committed to production should be kept to a minimum in order to reduce the risk of unnecessary expenditure, before confidence in the design has been established. If it is decided for operational or commercial reasons to commence manufacture before full development is complete, it is essential that the risk of so doing is quantified and the implications fully assessed.

4.4.3. Management of risk

The procurement of equipment for mine action programmes involves varying degrees of innovation, uncertainty and engineering risk. The effective management of risk by the Sponsor throughout the procurement process improves the likelihood of the equipment being delivered on time and to cost, and will meet its performance objectives.

4.5. Application of the process

This standard has described the 'ideal' procurement process for mine action equipment, and in theory every equipment project should pass through each stage of the process sequentially. In practice, the process is flexible, and some stages will overlap or may even be omitted, particularly in the case of small projects with limited engineering risk. Each project may be different and they shall each be treated on their relative merits.

5. Project management

Projects are likely to be initiated by the national Mine Action Centres (MACs), as they are closest to the needs of the User. For projects that are enabled through innovative technology, it may be appropriate for the developer of that technology to act (at least initially) as Sponsor. For global equipment requirements it is likely that UNMAS should be best positioned to become project Sponsor.

The Sponsor has overall responsibility for the project, from the identification of the need to acceptance of the equipment into service. The sponsor shall ensure that all documents are carefully drafted and are then circulated for comment to all those who can add value to the project. The documents should be amended to reflect the comments and observations.

At the Washington Conference on Humanitarian Demining in May 1998, it was agreed that UNMAS should act as focus, secretariat and 'clearing house' for all mine action technologies. This includes providing international visibility for all equipment procurement projects; it is particularly important that projects raised at local and national level are given wide visibility, as a similar need may exist elsewhere. UNMAS maintains a portfolio of all formal equipment projects, and Sponsors are encouraged to provide copies of all relevant documentation.

6. Responsibilities

6.1. United Nations

The United Nations shall be responsible, within available resources for:

1. the development of strategic policy for the development of mine action technology;
2. the coordination between donors, users, sponsors and developers;
3. the development of UN priorities and principles for investment in mine action technology; and
4. the management of technical feasibility studies.

6.2. National Mine Action Authority (NMAA)

The NMAA shall be responsible for:

1. establishing and maintaining national standards, regulations and procedures for the procurement of mine action equipment. These procedures should be consistent with IMAS, and other relevant national and international standards, regulations and requirements.

6.3. Mine action organizations / the Users

Mine action organisations (the Users) should:

1. establish SOPs which enable mine action procurement projects to be conducted effectively and efficiently; and
2. participate in the development of statements of operational need (SON) and statements of operational requirement (SOR).

6.4. Donors

Donors should:

1. ensure that full and formal risk assessments are developed prior to investment in research and development activities;
2. ensure that the minimum duplication of effort exists between competing research and development programmes; and
3. ensure that equipment procurement is based on a fully collaborative procurement process.

6.5. Research and development organisations and industry

The mine action technology research and development organisations and related industry should:

1. liaise with research and development programmes in similar technology areas, (within the bounds of commercial confidentiality); and
2. try to establish complementary and focused, rather than competing, areas of research.

Annex A (Normative) References

The following normative documents contain provisions, which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions of this part of the standard. For dated references, subsequent amendments to, or revisions of, any of these publications do not apply. However, parties to agreements based on this part of the standard are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the normative documents indicated below. For undated references, the latest edition of the normative document referred to applies. Members of ISO and IEC maintain registers of currently valid ISO or EN:

1. IMAS 04.10 Glossary of mine action terms and definitions;
2. IMAS 03.10 Guide to the procurement of mine action equipment;
3. IMAS 03.30 Guide to research of mine action technology;
4. IMAS 03.40 Test and evaluation of mine action equipment;
5. DEF STAN 00-25; and
6. DEF STAN 00-35 (Part 2).

The latest version/edition of these references should be used. GICHD hold copies of all references used in this standard. A register of the latest version/edition of the IMAS standards, guides and references is maintained by GICHD, and can be read on the IMAS website (www.mineactionstandards.org/). NMAA, employers and other interested bodies and organisations should obtain copies before commencing mine action programmes.

Annex C (Informative) Statement of Operational Need (SON)

C.1. General requirements

The purpose of the SON is, quite simply, to describe the User's operational needs. These needs may come from a change in policy or procedures requiring a new or modified capability, or the need to replace inadequate or obsolete equipment for reasons of safety and/or cost effectiveness, or in response to new or re-defined mine or ERW or unexploded sub-munitions hazards.

The SON should be prepared by the User who has identified the need, or by a Sponsor acting on behalf of the User. The SON should not be too prescriptive at this early stage in the procurement process, as that could limit the range of possible solutions. The style and clarity of writing is important as many who read, comment and act on the document may have no detailed knowledge of mine action equipment, practices and procedures.

SONs should be based on the general format given below, modified as necessary to reflect the particular operational problem. The SON should be short and concise, normally no more than four pages, although additional detail can be added as an Annex.

At this stage in the procurement process an attempt should be made by UNMAS to establish whether the SON is based on a local operational need or whether it has wider and more universal application. For global equipment requirements it may be appropriate for UNMAS, or an agency acting on behalf of UNMAS, to become project sponsor.

C.2. Layout of Statement of Operational Need (SON)

Address Block of the Sponsor

Date

Statement of Tasks and Output [Title]
[Reference number]

References:

A. SON.

B. As required.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Refer to SON. Give the general background and operational imperatives that have led to this equipment requirement. Outline the equipment's likely contribution to the overall mine action capability.

1.2. Objective

A concise definition of the operational requirement.

1.3. In-use Date

The required in-use date.

2. Limitations of current equipment and procedures

Refer to SON. Summarise the main limitations of the current equipment and procedures. Limiting factors may include:

1. safety;

2. inadequate equipment, procedures, logistics or training;

3. affordability / cost-effectiveness; and

4. lack of standardization / harmonisation.

3. Concept of use

3.1. Environment

Geographical and security context. Mine and ERW including unexploded sub-munitions contamination and its impact. If the proposed equipment is to be used in more than one mine action programme then the environmental conditions for all likely areas/locations should be given.

3.2. Organization(s)

Organizational framework(s) within which the proposed equipment will be used.

3.3. Procedures

Anticipated procedures and operational use of the proposed equipment. Indicate the necessary changes to existing procedures, management and operator skills.

4. Operational tasks and output

This is the most important section of the STO. It lists the tasks that the equipment should be able to perform to achieve the objective(s) given in clause 1. Emphasis should be given to defining the output required rather than the means of achieving it. The means of achieving the tasks will be addressed in the subsequent FS. The tasks should be listed in two groups, as follows:

4.1. Essential tasks

In priority order, list the essential tasks. For each task, define the target performance and output.

4.2. Desirable tasks

In priority order, list the desirable tasks. For each task, define the target performance and output.

4.3. Variation

If the priority, performance and output for each task varies between mine action programmes, then it will be necessary to make clear this variance - probably in the form of a matrix.

5. Standardization

This section of the STO should define the level of standardization required within and between mine action programmes: i.e. compatibility, interoperability, interchange-ability or commonality.

It may be appropriate to define the levels of standardization in terms of the minimal level and the optimal level.

6. Design standards

This section of the STO should define the design standards. At this stage in the procurement process only the critical standards, which may become 'design drivers' and will therefore need to be explored in the FS, should be addressed.

These will include the standards necessary to satisfy:

1. safety issues;
2. the essential tasks listed in clause 4.1 above;
3. limiting factors such as operator skills, logistic support, transportability, reliability, maintainability and reparability;
4. climatic, environmental and storage requirements; and
5. the minimal and optimal levels of standardization defined in clause 5 above.

7. Associated equipment and training

The issue of associated equipment and training will be addressed later, in the Statement of Requirement (SOR). At this stage only critical issues, which may become 'design drivers' and will therefore need to be explored in the subsequent FS, should be addressed.

8. Funding

Indicate whether funding has been made available, or 'earmarked' for the procurement of the proposed equipment.

9. Outline timings

State the urgency, indicate the required in-use date (see clause 1.3 above) and explain the implications of failing to meet this date

10. Feasibility Study (FS)

If it is deemed necessary to conduct a FS before drafting the SOR, then this section should outline the reasons for the FS, its scope and timescale. One of the major tasks of the FS will be to identify the degree of harmonisation that can be achieved and how technology can best be applied to meet the different requirements of each mine action programme.

Detailed terms of reference should be set out in an Annex. The aim should be to proceed swiftly to a firm SOR, subject to the outcome of the FS and the availability of funding.

Signature Block of Sponsor

Annexes:
A. Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Feasibility Study.

B. As required.

Distribution: As required.

Annex D (Informative) Statement of Tasks and Outputs

D.1. General requirements

The STO should be prepared by the Sponsor based on the findings of the Preliminary Study. Its purpose is to articulate the User's needs in broad terms, giving the tasks of the equipment and the key characteristics, with the emphasis on the output required rather than the means of achieving it, so as to enable full consideration of alternative solutions.

The STO should explain the anticipated concept of use of the equipment including how the equipment is going to be integrated into current mine action activities, its general operating procedures and the conditions that the equipment would be expected to operate in. It should define the target parameters of the equipment solution, such as the critical weight and dimensions (for transportation), workforce constraints (numbers and skills available), in-service date and predicted life span. An indication of likely target costs for the project should be given.

STOs should be based on the general format given below, modified as necessary to reflect the particular operational problem. Principles should appear in the main body of the document, with detail relegated to Annexes. The STO will be circulated widely to industry and donors, and will be read by some with limited understanding of mine action practices or current equipment. As such, the style and clarity of writing is important. Jargon and local terminology should be avoided.

D.2. Format of Statement of Tasks and Output (STO)

Address Block of the Sponsor

Date

Statement of Tasks and Output

[Title]
[Reference number]

References:

A. SON.

B. As required.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Refer to SON. Give the general background and operational imperatives that have led to this equipment requirement. Outline the equipment's likely contribution to the overall mine action capability.

1.2. Objective

A concise definition of the operational requirement.

1.3. In-use Date

The required in-use date.

2. Limitations of current equipment and procedures

Refer to SON. Summarise the main limitations of the current equipment and procedures. Limiting factors may include:

1. safety;

2. inadequate equipment, procedures, logistics or training;

3. affordability / cost-effectiveness; and

4. lack of standardization / harmonisation.

3. Concept of use

3.1. Environment

Geographical and security context. Mine and ERW including unexploded sub-munitions contamination and its impact. If the proposed equipment is to be used in more than one mine action programme then the environmental conditions for all likely areas/locations should be given.

3.2. Organization(s)

Organizational framework(s) within which the proposed equipment will be used.

3.3. Procedures

Anticipated procedures and operational use of the proposed equipment. Indicate the necessary changes to existing procedures, management and operator skills.

4. Operational tasks and output

This is the most important section of the STO. It lists the tasks that the equipment should be able to perform to achieve the objective(s) given in clause 1. Emphasis should be given to defining the output required rather than the means of achieving it. The means of achieving the tasks will be addressed in the subsequent FS. The tasks should be listed in two groups, as follows:

4.1. Essential tasks

In priority order, list the essential tasks. For each task, define the target performance and output.

4.2. Desirable tasks

In priority order, list the desirable tasks. For each task, define the target performance and output.

4.3. Variation

If the priority, performance and output for each task varies between mine action programmes, then it will be necessary to make clear this variance - probably in the form of a matrix.

5. Standardization

This section of the STO should define the level of standardization required within and between mine action programmes: i.e. compatibility, interoperability, interchange-ability or commonality.

It may be appropriate to define the levels of standardization in terms of the minimal level and the optimal level.

This section of the STO should define the design standards. At this stage in the procurement process only the critical standards, which may become 'design drivers' and will therefore need to be explored in the FS, should be addressed.

These will include the standards necessary to satisfy:

1. safety issues;
2. the essential tasks listed in clause 4.1 above;
3. limiting factors such as operator skills, logistic support, transportability, reliability, maintainability and reparability;
4. climatic, environmental and storage requirements; and
5. the minimal and optimal levels of standardization defined in clause 5 above.

7. Associated equipment and training

The issue of associated equipment and training will be addressed later, in the Statement of Requirement (SOR). At this stage only critical issues, which may become 'design drivers' and will therefore need to be explored in the subsequent FS, should be addressed.

8. Funding

Indicate whether funding has been made available, or 'earmarked' for the procurement of the proposed equipment.

9. Outline timings

State the urgency, indicate the required in-use date (see clause 1.3 above) and explain the implications of failing to meet this date

10. Feasibility Study (FS)

If it is deemed necessary to conduct a FS before drafting the SOR, then this section should outline the reasons for the FS, its scope and timescale. One of the major tasks of the FS will be to identify the degree of harmonisation that can be achieved and how technology can best be applied to meet the different requirements of each mine action programme.

Detailed terms of reference should be set out in an Annex. The aim should be to proceed swiftly to a firm SOR, subject to the outcome of the FS and the availability of funding.

Signature Block of Sponsor

Annexes:
A. Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Feasibility Study.

B. As required.

Distribution:

As required.

Annex E (Informative) Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR)

E.1 General requirements

Based on the findings of the FS, the Sponsor will develop the STO into an SOR. The purpose of the SOR is to provide a detailed statement of the characteristics and performance expected of the equipment, based on the preferred solution. It should also fully address all relevant environmental, manpower, training and logistic issues. These all have to be carefully considered, defined and recorded in the SOR since the document forms the baseline against which the equipment will be evaluated, and eventually accepted for use.

The SOR provides those concerned with endorsing the project (be it at local, national or international level) with a full justification of the requirement, and a statement of estimated costs, technical factors and timings, as a basis for a decision on whether or not to proceed. It also provides industry with sufficient detail for design work to be undertaken (or modification to be made to OTS equipment) including the need to satisfy all relevant standards.

It is vital that the Sponsor makes a clear distinction between essential requirements and desirable requirements. This distinction is important during the design and development stage when there is a need to focus on the essential requirements, sometimes at the expense of the desirable requirements. Failure to draw a clear distinction may result in a solution that is 'over-specified'; this invariably leads to additional costs and risk.

It is also necessary to make a clear distinction between generic requirements (i.e. the performance and environmental characteristics which will be common to all planned uses of the equipment) and local needs (i.e. the performance and characteristics which reflect local environmental conditions, operating procedures and operational requirements). The aim should be to maximise the generic requirements. Wherever possible, the local requirements should be met by relatively simple adjustments or modifications to major assemblies (e.g. raising or lowering the ground clearance of vehicles, or adding swamp tracks), by the addition of appliqué sub-assemblies (e.g. adding ceramic armour against shaped-charge anti-tank mines) or by software changes (e.g. Optimising the performance of sensors against the local mine or ERW or unexploded sub-munitions hazards).

SORs should be based on the general format below, modified as necessary to reflect the particular operational problem. Principles should appear in the main body of the document, with detail relegated to Annexes.

E.2. Format of Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR)

Address Block of the Sponsor

Date

Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR) [Title]
[Reference number]

References:

A. SON.

B. STO.

C. Feasibility study.

D. As required.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Give the general background and operational imperatives that have led to this equipment requirement - as defined in the SON and the STO. Outline the equipment's likely contribution to the overall mine action capability.

1.2. Objective(s)

A concise definition of the operational requirement.

1.3. In-use date

The required in-use date.

2. Concept of use

2.1. Environment

Geographical and security context. Mine and ERW contamination and its impact. If the proposed equipment is to be used in more than one mine action programme then the environmental conditions for all likely areas/locations should be given.

2.2. Organization(s)

Organizational framework(s) within which the proposed equipment will be used.

2.3. Procedures

Anticipated procedures and operational use of the proposed equipment. Indicate the necessary changes to existing procedures, management and operator skills.

2.4. Scenario

An indicative scenario(s) should be defined. The scenario should represent the likely use of the equipment over a prescribed period of time. This may include:

1. an operating cycle, distinguishing between continuous and intermittent running;

2. for vehicles, give the distances travelled in the scenario, including the average speed on roads, tracks and cross-country;

3. routine servicing and maintenance; and

4. periods of non-use, i.e. parked, garaged or in storage.

The indicative scenario is most important. It will be used during the design and development stage to optimise the performance of the equipment to the scenario. It will also be used during subsequent testing and evaluation, including assessment of OTS equipment.

3. Operational tasks

This section lists the tasks that the equipment should be able to perform to achieve the objective(s) given in clause 1.2. Details should be the same as those given in the STO, amended as necessary during the FS. The tasks should be listed in two groups, as follows:

3.1. Essential tasks

In priority order, list the essential tasks. For each task, define the target performance and output.

3.2. Desirable tasks

In priority order, list the desirable tasks. For each task, define the target performance and output.

3.3. Variation

If the priority, performance and output for each task varies between mine action programmes, then it will be necessary to make clear this variation - preferably in the form of a matrix.

4. Operational characteristics

The purpose of this section is to give the key performance characteristics that the equipment is required to meet in order to satisfy the essential and desirable tasks listed in clauses 3.1 and 3.2 above.

5. MANPRINT

MANPRINT (MANpower and PERsonnel INTegration) is a management and technical programme that seeks to maximise the operational effectiveness of manned systems by integrating the five areas of organizational issues, skills, training, human factors engineering and safety. The application of MANPRINT should be encouraged for all new mine action equipment projects.

Note: MANPRINT is not a simple process, and it is not envisaged that it should be used for minor programmes or at a local level; rather that it continues to be implemented by those organisations that already have substantive experience with the system.

5.1. Organizational issues

The following manpower and organizational issues should be addressed:

1. an assessment should be made of the new personnel and organizational requirements for the operation, maintenance and repair of the system, together with the training manpower implications. The full costs of this additional personnel should be exposed; and
2. an assessment should be made of how these additional personnel requirements could be reduced. A trade-off analysis should be conducted.

5.2. Human skills

The following issues should be addressed:

1. an assessment should be made of the aptitude and skills required by the operators, maintainers, repairers and suppliers of the new equipment; and
2. an assessment should be made of the ability to hire suitably qualified staff males and

females,either locallyorinternationally.

5.3. Training needs

A Training Needs Analysis (TNA) should cover:

1. the knowledge, skills and ability needed by the User to operate, maintain and repair the equipment; and

the training requirements to ensure that the User is able to operate, maintain and repair the equipment. The full costs of such training must be exposed.

5.4. Human engineering

This should include:

1. workspace design including layout, lighting, communication and management needs, stowage and maintainability;
2. man-machine interface including displays, indicators and controls;
3. workload; and
4. human capabilities and limitations and their effect on performance, particularly under conditions of continuous personal risk.

Use should be made of appropriate ergonomic standards. (Reference may be made to DEF-STAN 00-25.)

5.5. System safety

This should address issues of equipment safety during storage, transport, operational maintenance and repair. Reference should be made to local health and safety standards, and is likely to include the identification of potential hazards to the User such as noise, shock, vibration, chemical substances, oxygen deficiency temperature extremes and trauma.

6. Standardization

This section of the SOR should define the level of standardization required of the equipment within and between mine action programmes. Details should be the same as those given in the STO, amended as necessary during the FS.

7. Transportability

This section should address the transportability needs of the equipment. Subject to the envisaged operational use' the requirements for movement by road, rail, sea and air (carried internally, under slung or airdropped) should be considered. In a post-conflict situation, however, there may be few cleared roads and limited (if any) rail facilities. A realistic appreciation of the situation should be made.

8. Environmental conditions

The climatic conditions that were summarised earlier in clause 2.1 above should be amplified in this section. These may be described in detail, or reference can be made to international standards such as DEF STAN 00-35 (Part 2).

9. Reliability

The equipment reliability should be quantified. It should take into account the indicative scenario(s) defined in clause 2.4 above and the findings of the FS. The requirements should normally be defined in terms of sub-system (or assembly) reliability, and the overall system reliability.

10. Maintainability and reparability

The ease of maintainability and reparability should be defined. This is particularly relevant for equipment that will be deployed at some distance from specialist repair facilities.

11. Design standards

This section of the SOR should define the design standards. Details should be the same as those given in the STO, amended as necessary during the FS.

These will include the standards necessary to satisfy:

1. safety issues;
2. the key performance characteristics detailed in clause 4 above;
3. the MANPRINT requirements detailed in clause 5 above;
4. climatic, environmental and storage requirements;
5. the minimal and optimal levels of standardization detailed in clause 6 above; and
6. the maintainability and reparability requirements detailed in clause 10 above.

12. Logistic support

The logistic support requirements should be fully exposed in the SOR. The main issues should be addressed in this section, with the details relegated to an Annex.

13. Associated equipment

This section should address any specialist tools, stores and technical publications that may be required to calibrate, prepare, operate, maintain, service and repair the equipment.

14. Outline timings

State the urgency, indicate the required in-use date (see clause 1.3 above) and explain the implications of failing to meet this date.

Signature Block of Sponsor

Annexes: As required.

Distribution: As required.

Amendment record

Management of IMAS amendments

The IMAS series of standards are subject to formal review on a three-yearly basis, however this does not preclude amendments being made within these three-year periods for reasons of operational safety and efficiency or for editorial purposes.

As amendments are made to this IMAS they will be given a number, and the date and general details of the amendment shown in the table below. The amendment will also be shown on the cover page of the IMAS by the inclusion under the edition date of the phrase ‘incorporating amendment number(s) 1 etc.’

As the formal reviews of each IMAS are completed new editions may be issued. Amendments up to the date of the new edition will be incorporated into the new edition and the amendment record table cleared. Recording of amendments will then start again until a further review is carried out.

The most recently amended IMAS will be the versions that are posted on the IMAS website at www.mineactionstandards.org.

Number	Date	Amendment Details
1	01 Dec 2004	Formatting changes. Minor text editing changes. Changes to terms, definitions and abbreviations where necessary to ensure that this IMAS is consistent with IMAS 04.10. 4. Substantive changes: Clause 4.1, change of a ‘must’ to a ’should’. Annex E, clause E.2. Clause 4 in the example, change of a ‘must’ to a ’should’. c) Annex F, clause F.2. Clauses 3, 7, 9, 10, and 12 in the example, changes of a ‘must’ to a ’should’ x 5.
2	23 Jul 2005	Clause 4.1, second paragraph amended to remove reference to a ‘military procurement process’ and the replacement of a ‘should’ with a ‘can’. Clause 4.2, second paragraph, removal of the word ‘staffing’ and replacing it with ‘management’. Clause 4.3.1, new second paragraph added covering considerations during a Preliminary Study. Clause 4.3.2. Third sentence, covering the concept of use of equipment during the preparation of the Statement of Tasks and Output has been expanded to provide more detail. Last sentence, removal of the word ‘staffing’ and replacing it with ‘management’. Clause 4.3.3, first sentence of the first paragraph, replacement of the word ‘staffed’. Clause 4.3.4, last paragraph, removal of the word ‘staffing’ and replacing it with ‘management’. Clause 4.4.2, inclusion of ‘generic operating procedures’ as part of the information preparation during Full Development. Clause 5, the main heading has been changed from ‘staffing’ to ‘project management’. Clause 6.4, inclusion of a new sub clause c). Annex B, change to the definition of ‘acceptance’ to be consistent with IMAS 04.10. Annex E, clause E1, second paragraph first sentence covering the concept of use of equipment during the preparation of the Statement of Tasks and Output has been expanded to provide more detail.
3	01 Aug 2006	Minor changes/additions to the first and second paragraph of the foreword. Introduction and clause 6.1 d), removal of the word ‘staffing’ and replacing it with 'management’. Removal of the term ‘threat’ from throughout the IMAS. 4. Inclusion of the term ‘mines and ERW’.
4	01 Mar 2010	UNMAS address updated. Removed of Annex B from all the IMAS and re-naming Annex C to B, D to C etc. Also their references updated in the IMAS. Minor changes to include cluster munitions and gender issues.
5	01 Aug 2012	Reviewed for impact of IATG development. Minor typographical amendments.
6	01 Jun 2013	Reviewed for the impact of new land release IMAS. Amendment no included in the title and header.