4.1.0.1.

This document provides guidance on how to use the GMP's, POSMS and POEMS. Unless specifically stated the guidance is applicable to all of the procedures. Where reference is made to POEMS or POSMS explicitly the guidance applies just to that area.

4.2.0.1.

Key to the management system is the concept of through life safety and environmental management. DTs must ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the safety issues and environmental impacts arising from activities at each life-cycle stage, operational condition and equipment status.

This is achieved through life by:

• Planning for the whole life cycle from the earliest steps;
• Considering the effects of' Lines of Development' such as supporting systems, personnel, training and facilities;
• Consultation with stakeholders;
• Setting meaningful safety and environmental objectives, targets and  requirements;
• Appointing Suitably Qualified and Experienced contractors;
• Employing independent safety and/or environmental assessment where appropriate;
• Keeping management arrangements and assessments under review.

Within the POEMS an impact is generally an effect that the equipment or service may have on the environment. A related concern includes legal compliance, MOD Policy requirements, or stakeholder interest, all of which need to be addressed and managed if risks to the project are to be avoided.

4.2.0.3.

In outline,the POSMS causes DTs to collect information and identify requirements on the potential harm presented by the item being procured; to use this information to conduct Risk Assessments; and to use the findings to influence the design of the item and how it is used and supported. POEMS in outline causes DTs to examine the project through the application of an EISS and/or EIM process and use the findings of the EIM to determine relevant environmental objectives and targets and an Environmental Management Plan for the equipment or service.

4.3.0.2.

In the majority of cases, the safety of the platform has primacy for both safety  environmental impact.   Whatever the situation in practice it is important to determine whether the project stands alone (highly unlikely) or is part of a ‘system of systems’.  In the latter case it is important to ensure that all relevant DTs are consulted in the stakeholder processes and that there are clear agreements on assessment and mitigation responsibilities. Because of the interaction of different equipment and services, it will also be important to ensure that other DT stakeholders get early visibility of significant safety issues arising from an individual sub- or supra- system.  If this is done, it will be easier to make related design changes to accommodate the issue.

4.4.0.1.

At  the  present  time  alignment  between  safety  (through  the  POSMS)  and environment  (through  the  POEMS)  is  likely  to  be  via  conducting  combined studies and setting up joint Safety and Environmental Committees, and producing combined Safety and Environmental Cases and Case Reports.  The DT can decide the degree and extent of this aligned or combined approach to be adopted depending on the complexity of the project and the issues that are likely to arise.

4.4.0.3.

For instance if noise tests are to be undertaken, it makes sense to ensure that the data collected will be suitable for both occupational and environmental exposure assessments.   By the same token, just because an occupational assessment for noise is being undertaken it should not be assumed, without checking, that the safety work will automatically cover environment as well.

4.4.0.5.

It is also likely that common control or mitigation measures and strategies can be considered, especially where the safety improvement solution involves control at source. Where this proves impracticable or controls are developed separately, the DT must be careful to ensure that the wider implication of solving a safety (or environmental) issue are considered. It might be entirely sensible and reasonable to deal with the occupational exposure risks of an accidental rapid discharge to air in enclosed by,relying; removal and subsequent dispersion and dilution. However this is likely to give rise to environmental impacts which have to be considered and evaluated.

4.5.0.2.

If the project is wholly estates-based then the methodology outlined in The MOD Sustainability and Environmental Appraisal Tools (SEAT) should be followed and there should be no need to consider the POEMS, other than to ensure the correct interface with any other equipment which may be deployed.

4.7.0.2.

However, there are specific conditions for UORs where it may not be possible to complete all the steps and procedures of the POSMS or POEMS in the same time frame as acquiring and deploying the capability.  This does not affect the level of Safety performance or assurance which must be achieved, though it may affect the nature of the Safety assurance information available. Potential environmental impacts should not be ignored and at least a screening and scoping study must be undertaken.  This may, in some cases, necessitate the user undertaking retrospective studies and mitigation strategies.  There are also minor differences in how the POEMS should be applied to legacy systems, where the equipment is already in service or has reached design freeze, compared to conventional development projects.

4.8.0.1.

The procedures have been produced on the basis of a conventional developmental acquisition project, whilst ensuring that the majority of likely variations and procurement strategies can be accommodated.  As discussed in previous sections, the procedures are also aligned with the main phases and stages of the CADMID/T cycle.  Therefore if a DT is managing a conventional development project, all procedures and process in the SMS should apply.  Any variations that are required are likely to be a result of two factors.  First, whether the DT is using contractors or advisors to support their work, in which case it may be appropriate for the DT to use these to complete the relevant procedures.  Second, whether the equipment or service (and its potential impact) is so straightforward as to warrant the various streamlining options available within the POSMS or POEMS.

4.9.0.1.

PPP/PFI projects, including those for Service provision, should meet the same safety standards as if they were developed solely by and for MOD. In these cases it may be appropriate, once a decision has been made to proceed by way of a PPP/PFI solution, to contractually transfer the requirement for conformance with the procedures to the PPP/PFI contractor. However, responsibility for safety cannot be transferred and remains with the MOD Duty Holder. The DT (and Safety Committee) should then be able to review and influence the contractor’s approach and the system outputs and deliverables.

4.10.0.2.

For further information and guidance on Multinational Collaborative Projects, refer to Supplementary Guidance Documents section below.

4.11.0.1.

For these procurement options the basic design of the PSS may be stable, and the manufacturer or supplier of the PSS is likely to have carried out some safety assessment of the PSS. The DT needs to consider available information provided with the PSS being procured, such as UKCA/CE markings. This should influence the complexity of any Safety Case requirements:

• For simple pieces of PSS a Safety Case may not be required. However, these pieces of PSS may become part of a larger Safety Case within a System.
• If its use is not outside of its design parameters then the provided manufacturer’s instructions should be sufficient to help the DT form its own risk assessment, demonstrating that the safety risks associated with the PSS are adequately identified, communicated and/or controlled, then the Safety and Environmental Case could be little more than a safety and environmental statement and technical leaflet.
• For projects, programmes, and other procurement methods, where a risk assessment is not sufficient to demonstrate that the safety risks associated with certain PSS are adequately identified, communicated and/or controlled, then a more comprehensive Safety and Environmental Case must be developed.

4.11.0.3.

Executive Safety Responsible/Executive Environmental Responsible individuals can utilise the above guidance where appropriate to assist them in identifying and developing specific strategies (e.g., Commercial maritime Approach to the Management of COTS float and move Equipment (CAMCE)). The CAMCE model is where the MOD will no longer develop separate Safety Cases for CAMCE equipment but will accept the OEM/Class Safety/Type approval certification provided. The Class Cell will manage and produce supporting evidence for the platform and critical systems Safety and Environmental cases to ensure that the platform is safe to operate at design levels of environmental impact and remains in Class.

4.12.0.1.

Safety and environmental management should apply to UORs as it does for any other type of project. The same levels of safety performance will be required, in that systems must be made tolerably safe and Risks ALARP.  However, it is recognised that it may not be possible or practical to apply the full procedural requirements of the management system before UORs come into service.  This may affect the nature of the safety assurance information which is available to support Introduction to Service.

4.12.0.3.

In some cases this last principle may require little more than the collection and collation   of   data   which   may   not   have   been   available   earlier.   In   other circumstances, especially for any equipment or service brought into service under an UOR and retained in service, this could mean provision of confirmatory assurance evidence through tests or analysis.  The DT must consider the best approach on a system by system basis, and this should be validated by the Safety and Environmental Committees.

4.13.0.1.

Legacy systems include those systems where the design has already been accepted (design freeze) although the system may not yet be in service, and those systems which are already in service (mature) and where the potential safety or environmental impacts have not been considered in a way which can be shown to be in conformance with the POSMS or POEMS.

TLB Policy that pre-dates the issue of the ASEMS should have ensured that retrospective Safety and Environmental assessments have been conducted on Legacy Systems. The proceduresmust now be applied to these acquired items for the remaining stages of their life cycles.

4.13.0.3.

Where the equipment is already in-service, it is appropriate to consider the following issues when deciding the safety and environmental assessment plan.

• The remaining length of time of the equipment’s or service projected service life;
• Whether the legislation review has highlighted a need for mitigation that has not already been put in place;
• Future plans for major modifications and capability enhancements, and their timing;
• Historic evidence of actual safety and environmental incidents and impacts;
• Any legal compliance problems to date or issues with regulators;
• Any stakeholder (particularly external to MOD) interest to date (for example Parliamentary Questions or enquiries regarding the equipment’s safety and environmental performance).

4.13.0.5.

The key to dealing with legacy systems is to develop an environmental impact assessment and safety plan which is proportional to both the risk to life, environmental impacts and the remaining life of the equipment or service.

NB It should be remembered that if a legacy system is to be given an extended life, as a result of a major system modification, then the modification programme itself could be considered as a new project.

4.13.0.7.

In general, a system that is close to the end of its service life, and with a low safety and environmental risk (based on historical performance) will only require planning and preparing for disposal.

4.13.0.9.

Also common for all legacy systems is the creation (if one does not already exist) of a materials inventory as part of the environmental assessment process (EMP04 and EMP05) and Environmental Feature Matrix (EMP02) for the equipment or service. A cursory treatment of CAD stages within the EISS may still be important and useful in identifying issues relating to subsequent legislation applying retrospectively upon which, mitigation or management measures can be based

4.13.0.11.

For further information and guidance on Legacy Systems, refer to Supplementary Guidance Documents section below.

4.14.0.1.

At all times, within the POSMS and POEMS, DTs should be applying the precautionary principle to assessments, the evaluation of evidence, and decisions. In practice, this means that if there is an absence of information, or if the information available is inadequate, then the DT (or its advisors) must base assessments on worst case assumptions and scenarios. These assessments will form the basis of subsequent actions and decisions until better or more complete data and information is available and the assessments can be revised or repeated accordingly. Exceptions to this general principle may include applying the proceduresin certain UORs or legacy systems situations where it may be allowable to proceed on some other basis, such as expert judgement, or a firm commitment to backfill data and assessments. This must be fully described and documented for the project, as this action may represent increased project and organisational risk. In such cases, it may be appropriate to also make an entry in the overall project risk register.

4.15.0.1.

Implementing the procedures on acquisition projects should reduce environmental liabilities and assist with legal compliance issues. However, the procedures should also assist DTs to identify any safety or environmentally beneficial or positive features and aspects of an acquisition project. For instance, if equipment or a service has significant energy demands, any energy efficiency measures that can be built into the system could repay themselves many times over, during the life of the project. There may also be features which can have both operational and environmental benefits. Again using the case of energy efficiency it may be possible to secure operational improvements such as greater range and achieve reduced emissions.

4.16.1.2.

(a.1)    Lack  of  design  data  makes  it  difficult  to  develop  safety  and environmental cases for legacy systems.
 

Possible Issues:

• Original design information may not be available for legacy systems.
• Justifications for safety and environmental-related assumptions or decisions may not be available.
• Information  on  hazardous  material  used  in  the  equipment  may  not  be available.
• The software used in legacy systems may be of unknown pedigree.
• It may not be feasible or easy to implement safety and environmental- related design changes for equipment that is already in service.

Corresponding Advice:

• Use  suitably  qualified  and  experienced  personnel  to  undertake  a  gap analysis and decide what additional information is required to comply with POEMS and POSMS, in particular to produce robust safety and environmental cases.   The gap analysis should take into account the life- cycle phases under consideration.
• The  gap  analysis  will  inform  what  further  safety  and  environmental activities are to be undertaken.  Retrospective documentation for past life- cycle phases will not be required.  For remaining phases, the analysis should investigate whether full assessments are needed.   Any decisions to streamline the assessment (and audit and assurance arrangements) should be agreed with key stakeholders and recorded.
• Where key information gaps appear, it may be necessary to undertake safety and environmental studies and analyses to verify that existing operations do not pose unacceptable levels of risk. Be aware that there may be a legal requirement to undertake some studies and analyses e.g. to determine hazardous materials that have been used in the equipment.
• In order to determine if such safety and environmental analyses will be worthwhile or useful, compare the potential benefits against the cost of undertaking the work.
• Make allowances for such studies and analyses when planning budgets and resources.
• It  may  be  possible  to  use  historical  data  in  safety  and  environmental justifications.  Seek expert advice on the extent to which reliance can be placed  on  historical  data  in  the  safety  and  environmental  cases.     In particular, assess whether the historical data is still relevant to the system’s current usage and operational environment.
• For safety-related software issues refer to the guidance within Def Stan 00-055.For Software of Unknown Pedigree (SOUP), meeting Def Stan 00-055 evidence requirements can be very expensive.    In order to determine if
• demonstrating Def Stan 00-055 compliance is useful or worthwhile compare the potential benefits (for example in terms of lives saved) against the cost of undertaking the work. Use expert advice where necessary.
• Document important decisions and supporting evidence to produce an audit trail record that will be useful for the future.
• Continue to log in-service incidents and look for trends.  Consult with user organisations to identify if operational procedures are being carried out and if  they  are  effective.    Revisit  the  safety  and  environmental  cases  as necessary when in-service issues are identified

4.16.1.4.

(a.3) Keep the Safety and Environmental Legislation Registers Up to Date (SMP 01 and EMP 01)

4.16.1.6.

(a.4) Dissemination of information (SMP 01, 03 and EMP 01).

Possible Issues:

• For legacy equipment there is potential to assume that all relevant safety and environmental stakeholders are involved, when this may not be the case.
• Most equipment interfaces with other systems and all equipment has users.
• If no relevant stakeholders are included from the teams responsible for these systems, there is a risk that the safety and/or environmental risks will be missed.
• Stakeholders may not recognise the importance of their role and may send unqualified people to represent them at meetings. Decisions may therefore be taken by unqualified personnel.
• Instructions may not be clearly disseminated to appropriate people.

Corresponding Advice:

• Be proactive in formally defining and agreeing stakeholders’ responsibilities.
• Develop and maintain formal stakeholder register. For DTs with numerous small legacy projects, a DT-level stakeholder register may suffice. Ensure that there is sufficient budget and resources to do so. Ensure that stakeholders understand the importance of the role they play in your project.
• Ensure that the planners such as PJHQ are identified as stakeholders and have been informed of their responsibilities.
• Ensure that that experienced users and maintainers are involved in hazard identification and analysis and in environmental risk and impact identification.
• Safety and environmental management plans should:
  • Include the method of dissemination of information (the method may vary depending on the criticality of the safety and environmental information);
• Communicate assumptions, boundaries and interfaces;
  • Emphasise the importance of communicating the safety and environmental information to the user;
  • State who receives the safety and environmental case, who holds it and who reviews it;
  • Ensure there is a feedback loop from the user to ensure they receive and act upon the information.
• Refer to the domain specific Joint Service Publications for additional information.
• Safety and Environmental evidence should be retained until after system disposal (either on hard or electronic copy). There may be legal requirements for the retention of some data, such as health monitoring records. See System Support Procedure 03 for more details.
• Information on any changes initiated by the DT should be fed through to the end users, and vice versa.

4.16.1.8.

(a.6) Disposal.

Possible Issues:

• Developing a disposal plan should be considered as soon as possible in the project. Waiting until it is approaching out of service can incur unnecessary expense.
• DTs must interface with the Disposal Services Authority (DSA) for the disposal of all MOD surplus equipment and clarify the extent of safety information required by the DSA at an early stage.
• The disposal plan should include how obsolescence is to be addressed.
• The DT needs to be aware of its responsibilities for disposal.

Corresponding Advice:

• Obsolescence can be divided into 2 issues:
  • Obsolescence of main equipment. Produce a plan to show how obsolescence will be addressed.
  • Obsolescence of Spares. Safety and Environmental cases should address component and sub-system change due to obsolescence.

For both issues agree who is responsible for obsolescence management - the DT or the Contractor.

• Disposal can be divided into 2 areas:
  • Through life disposal. Emergency procedures should be written to cover disposal of equipment lost through accidents, this should also be covered in the risk registers. The DT needs to understand its responsibilities for waste disposal (this should be identified in the legislation register). Routine disposal of consumables, items replaced by modifications and mid-life upgrades are also the responsibility of the DT to dispose of in line with legislative requirements.
  • End of life disposal. Put a plan in place as soon as reasonably practical, identifying how to dispose of equipment and anticipated cost of disposal.
• If planning to sell equipment, or passing equipment to other MOD authorities for non-operational use (eg for training or display purposes), the MOD must understand its legal obligations to provide safety and environmental statements and data for the equipment. The MOD may also have a duty of care as an equipment supplier. These obligations should be discussed with the DSA and be captured in the safety and environmental legislation registers.
• Ensure that safety and environmental cases are in place for the disposal process.

4.16.2.1.

This additional guidance is intended to provide advice on the application of POEMS and POSMS to multi-national collaborative projects.

4.16.2.3.

(b.2)   Variations in Stakeholder’s Approaches to Safety and EnvironmentalManagement (SMP 03 and EMP 04).

Possible Issues:

• Partner nations may be happy to accept varying levels of risk and there may be a political dimension to decisions taken.
• Commercial and finance personnel may not fully appreciate the importance of safety and environmental issues.
• Equipment  capability  and  military  planning  organisations  may  have  a different perception of what is a tolerable level of risk than the DT.

Corresponding Advice:

• To de-risk a project satisfactorily the DT needs:
  • Desk officers with suitable qualifications and experience;
  • Senior Management support and championing;
  • Sufficient resources set aside for safety and environmental activities;
  • To be able to explain the benefits of the UK’s thorough approach to safety and environmental management to other nations;
  • A comprehensive audit trail and scrutiny of all information supplied and decisions made.
• Involve commercial and finance officers as key stakeholders.  Ensure they understand the benefits of good safety and environmental management.
• Ensure that the audit regime for the contract is clear and concise, and gives access to the necessary information.

4.16.2.5.

(b.4)  An up to date Legislation Register ensures key risks are identified (SMP01 and EMP01).

Possible Issues:

• The International Project Office may opt to specify non-UK legislation in safety and environmental contractual requirements.
• Different  nations  and  contractors  may  have  different  interpretations  of legislation and what constitutes an acceptable means of compliance.
• The UK may use the equipment in a different manner to other nations and therefore the UK safety, environmental and certification requirements may not be fulfilled by the contract.
• Whilst other nations may specify robust regulatory requirements, discrepancies may exist in the extent to which they ensure compliance with these regulations.
• Other nation’s legislation/policy requirements may not be as comprehensive as the UK.  For example other nation’s may not require:
  • Independent safety and environmental audits;
  • Assessment of contractor’s competency;
  • Safety  and  environmental  issues  associated  with  disposal  to  be addressed during the procurement;
  • The production of safety and environmental cases;
  • The  implementation of a Failure Reporting And Corrective Action System (FRACAS).
• Overseas contractors may lack understanding of UK safety and environmental requirements.
• Variations may exist between nations on the extent of reliance on military exemptions from safety and environmental legislation.
• Whilst compliance with certain international health and safety and environmental legislation will meanthatless hazardous materials are used in a system, such materials may be less functionally effective and therefore in turn lead to derived safety and environmental risks.

Corresponding Advice:

• Consult with the relevant System Safety Groups to identify key legislative requirements and work with other nations to influence their inclusion in the contract.
• Review non-UK legislation to judge its equivalence and check if it gives rise to unacceptable constraints or risks.  Provide risk mitigation if needed.
• Seek expert advice where appropriate. The DT should note that recommendations from independent bodies can add weight to the UK position and therefore sway the other partner nations and contractors.
• Set aside time and resources to agree a common interpretation of existing and emergent legislation and associated acceptable means of compliance both before contract award and throughout the project life cycle.
• If it is not possible to persuade the international collaborative project office to meet all of the UK’s safety and environmental requirements, it may be necessary set aside time and resources to undertake extra UK-specific safety and environmental work, such as:
  • Independent safety audits;
  • Assessing the contractor’s competency;
  • Ensuring that issues associated with disposal are addressed during the procurement;
  • Reviewing  the  impacts  of  differences  between  UK  and  non-UK legislative requirements;
  • Implementing of FRACAS;
  • Certification submissions.
• Implement a methodology to ensure that contractors inform the DT when they change their design to meet emerging legislative requirements.  When they do so consider the need to review the safety and environmental cases as required.

4.16.2.7.

(b.6)  Disposal (SMP 03, 13 and EMP 06, 07)

Possible Issues:

• There may be difficulties where the project spans the implementation of emergent disposal legislation.
• Lack of visibility of design information can lead to difficulties for the DT in:
  • Ensuring compliance with disposal requirements;
  • Discharging  safety  and  environmental  responsibilities  if  selling  the equipment on to a third party.

Corresponding Advice:

• Produce a comprehensive disposal plan at an early stage of the project.  Use and maintain it to ensure that any relevant issues are taken into account when negotiating the original contract.
• Assume  that  the  UK  will  have  to  dispose  of  its  equipment  and  ensure sufficient funds to do so are in place.  These funds should also allow for changes in disposal legislation.  To do so it will be necessary to:
  • Maintain safety and environmental legislation registers;
  • Update and maintain the disposal plan.
• If  planning  to  sell  equipment,  the  MOD  must  understand  its  legal obligations to provide safety and environmental statements and data for the equipment.      The MOD may also have a duty of care as an equipment supplier.    These obligations should be captured in the safety and environmental legislation registers.
• If  selling  the  equipment  on  to  provide  clear  limitations  on  how  the equipment is to be used.

4.16.3.1.

Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are partnerships that bring together, for mutual benefit, a public body and a private company in a long-term joint venture for the delivery of high quality public services.    PPPs cover a wide range of different types of contractual and collaborative partnerships including Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects. A PFI project is a project that involves the public sector contracting to purchase quality services with defined outputs from the private sector on a long term (typically 25 years) basis, and including maintaining and constructing the necessary infrastructure so as to take advantage of the private sector management skills and incentives by having private finance at risk.

Potential differences in areas such as the balance of shared MOD/contractor safety and environmental responsibilities, contracting methods, information flow and the use of civilian staff in the military environment requires the intelligent application of POSMS and POEMS to PPP and PFI Projects.

There are different types of PPP and PFI projects, each with the potential for different permutations of:

• MOD/Contractor equipment and facility ownership; and
• MOD/Contractor interaction in providing the service.

As such, it is not possible to apply a common prescriptive process to ensure the appropriate safety and environmental management of PPP and PFI projects.  This additional guidance aims to provide advice in applying POSMS and POEMS to PFI and PPP Projects.

4.16.3.3.

(c.2)  Interaction of Civilian and Military Equipment, Personnel, Procedures and Facilities will be complex (SMP 01 and EMP 01).

Possible Issues:
PPP/PFI Service Provision Contracts can involve:

• The interaction of civilian and military equipment, personnel, procedures and facilities;
• Contractor personnel undertaking activities that were once undertaken byMOD personnel;
• Activities that are undertaken under a mix of military and civil regulatory regimes.

Corresponding Advice:

• Define and document the detailed boundaries between civil and military operations and manage the interfaces between the two.
• Do  not  underestimate  the  effort  and  resources  required  to  define  the interfaces between the contractor and the MOD.  The overarching interface between the stakeholders is to be recorded in the project safety and environmental management systems.
• Potential safety and environmental risks may be reduced if interface issues can be addressed early in the project life, for example via Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs), Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Internal Business Agreements (IBAs).
• Engage early with Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO). Failure to do so may result in breach of environmental-related planning law.
• The hazard assessment process should give consideration to the safety risks that result from civilians working in a military environment.
• Ensure that the DT and the contractor thoroughly understand all aspects of the service to be provided and the environment in which it is to be provided. Be wary of contractor over-optimism in taking on responsibilities that they are not able to discharge.  Ownership of risks should be transferred to the organisation best-placed to address them; however, the DTL will retain overall responsibility for safety and environmental performance.
• It is good practice to allow bidding contractors access to relevant MOD stakeholders to ensure that they have good understanding of what they are being asked to do.     However, it is important that the DT manages and controls  the  communication  of  information  between  the  contractors  and other MOD stakeholders.  During a tender process, MOD must ensure that the same information is given to all potential bidders.
• Do not assume that MOD exemptions will apply to contractors undertaking activities.   MOD exemptions apply only to MOD staff and organisations; they do not apply to contractors.
• The  draft  contractual  requirements  should  be  informed  by  safety  and environmental assessments and reviewed by all appropriate stakeholders and against other stakeholder requirements as defined in the interface management documents to ensure coherency and consistency.
• At some point in the project life cycle, the immediate responsibility for managing the use of the equipment and services may transfer to the front line command chain of command.  Include front line commands in an up- front stakeholder engagement process, and in particular ensure that they are involved in the hazard identification and analysis and in the environmental and  risk  assessment  process  to  ensure  that  mitigations  are  actually achievable on the ground.
• Ensure  that  DT  and  Contractor  Safety  and  Environmental  Management Systems agree and document how other line–of-command issues are to be addressed, such as:
  • How  civilians  are  to  respond  to  orders  from  military  personnel, especially if the order is to operate equipment outside the safety and environmental case limitations or if emergency procedures rely on execution of commands;
  • How military personnel are to work under civilian instruction;
  • Who has overall jurisdiction/liability/responsibility for the activities.

Note  that  legal  health  and  safety  obligations  between  the  employee  and  the employer will continue to be applicable.

4.16.3.5.

(c.4)    The Contract must include Safety and Environmental Requirements (SMP 10 and EMP 06).

Possible Issues:

• DT will have through-life safety and environmental responsibilities.

Corresponding Advice:

• Continual  Review  Arrangements:  -  it  is  recommended  that  the  contract allows for review of the effectiveness of operational controls early after the contract is placed or in the service provision and, if necessary, the implementation of remedial changes.  Revised safety and environmental assumptions or operational changes (like using equipment in a different operational theatre to that originally intended etc.) should trigger review of operational controls.
• To ensure the provision and transparency of contractors‘ processes, the DT should consider including contract clauses to giving them the right to see any information (including inspection and audit of activities) deemed necessary to satisfy the DT that their safety and environmental responsibilities are being satisfied.
• The review mechanism defined in a contract depends largely on the nature of  the  project  itself. MOD has mandatory safety and environmental reporting procedures. Requirements for safety and environmental committee meetings should ensure review of safety hazards and environmental impacts/risks.
• Ensure that the contract allows for DT access to the contractor and sub- contractor facilities and records for audit purposes.
• Ensure that the contract comprehensively captures all necessary safety/environmental activities or information requirements, such as:
  • The  safety  and  environmental  activities  to  be  undertaken  by  the contractor;
  • Information to be delivered in the correct format and in a timely manner to other stakeholders who have safety or environmental management and assurance responsibilities;
  • Access to contractor documents and facilities for audits and reviews.

4.17.0.1.

Version 3.2 to 3.3 Uplift

Additional wording to COTS/MOTS at 4.11.0.3.

Version 3.1 to 3.2 Uplift

Update to wording for COTS/MOTS at 4.11.

Version 3.0 to 3.1 Uplift

Text change replacing Project Team with Delivery Team.

Version 2.3 to 3.0 Uplift

Major uplift from the Acquisition System Guidance (ASG) to online version.