INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MINE CLEARANCE TECHNOLOGY 2-4 July 1996 Copenhagen, DENMARK STANDARDS FOR HUMANITARIAN MINE CLEARANCE OPERATIONS QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR MINE CLEARANCE OPERATIONS Alistair Craib Introduction 1. It is a fundamental expectation that mine clearance will be undertaken safely, to the highest possible standards, and cost-effectively. All these considerations are essential and are key matters for review during quality assurance. Mine clearance, however, is not like an industrial process in which a sample can be easily tested and taken to represent the whole process. The variables in industrial processes are well known and, usually, the range of variations is predictable. Applying quality control to mine clearance is much more difficult because there are many variables whose range of variations can be unpredictable but, despite this, clearing mines is still a process and should be tested and subjected to quality verification. 2. Taking a small sample may not be representative of the whole but industrial quality control assumes that it is. Sampling the output from an industrial process also assumes that the process itself is a constant sequence of events conducted to strict procedures. Normally the industrial process, as a concept, will be accepted because it has already been proved to be successful. Therefore any subsequent unacceptable output is due to a failure of material or procedure. Inputs Are the raw materials acceptable? Procedures Are the procedures appropriate? Output Is the end product acceptable? 3. Each of these stages is rigorously tested and an error located at the input stage saves the time and money that would be wasted if the error were not found until later. This quality control mechanism, or a variant of it, can be applied to mine clearance. QUALITY CONTROL OR QUALITY ASSURANCE 4. Although possibly semantic, it is worth understanding the difference between quality control and quality assurance. The former is a system of inspection just before the customer receives the goods or services he has commissioned. The latter is the system put in place to maximise quality at all stages of the work, from the beginning to the end. Quality assurance, rather than quality control, is more appropriate to mine clearance and the remainder of this paper will be devoted to a whole-system approach to it. WHAT IS A FAILURE? 5. For the industrial process, a failure is a product which does not work, or breaks down too soon, or breaks down too frequently. In most cases it is accepted that eventually the product will fail (perhaps after years of use), or requires regular maintenance, or will become too outdated to be of continuing value. 6. In simple terms, for mine clearance a failure is a mine that has been missed; there is no question of maintenance, or eventual breakdown being permitted. Yet it is not possible to guarantee that every mine will be found and there is a debate on how failure (or success) can be measured. The United Nations has devised the figure of 99.6 per cent, which is taken to indicate the required degree of certainty that all mines have been destroyed. It is generally accepted that this is impossible to measure and, although it might have value as an indication of intent, it is of no use for quality assurance purposes. Emotionally, a missed mine will always constitute a failure even though (using the United Nations figure and from a purely theoretical viewpoint) it might have been one of the 0.4 per cent which is tacitly "acceptable". RELIABILITY LEVELS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE 7. There is no single event which achieves quality assurance - It is a system of events which, taken as a whole, provides a level of assurance. What this level is depends upon the system employed and the manner in which it is employed. To some extent the level is a matter of choice with higher levels being progressively more expensive to implement and taking more time.. A suggested scale of levels is: a) First level. This is essentially dependent upon the terms of the contract (and how well its technical requirements are specified) and the selection of a competent contractor. Unless this is right before work starts, the quality of the work itself will always be in doubt. This should be a mandatory part of quality assurance. b) Second level. This is the least that should be applied once work has started and involves monitoring the performance of the contractor to ensure that he is meeting the terms of the contract. c) Third level. This is, in effect, a form of quality control, since it requires some physical check on the ground, which has been cleared to test the quality of clearance. 8. It is not possible to quantify a precise probability that all mines have been cleared for each of these levels and this is why quality assurance is used instead of quality control. It is also why a systems approach is suggested. The more levels that form part of the quality assurance system, the greater the confidence that the work has been done well and, thus, the greater the theoretical probability that all mines have been removed. QUALITY ASSESSMENT POSSIBLE METHODS OF VERIFICATION 9. Each of the levels mentioned above incorporates many stages and facets, which are briefly discussed below. 10. First level verification. There are two major components to this level of verification. First, the contract must be precisely drafted and, secondly, the contractor must be carefully selected. The onus for both of these lies with the donor, but he may wish to employ a specialist to assist. If this specialist is also the monitor for the Second Level Verification, then both levels are enhanced. 11. Contract Drafting. It has been known in the past for donors to provide money with a rather vague request to "clear mines in ...." No timescales or performance targets are given, and the area is not clearly defined. It is to the benefit of the donor and contractor that both know exactly what is required. It is a mistake to create an imprecise contract document. The minimum technical components of a contract should be: Where the work is to be done. The depth down to which clearance is to be undertaken. The timescale allowed. The performance milestones to be met. The minimum standards expected to be used by the contractor. Proof to be provided of: - Competence of the manpower. - Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). - Quality policy. - Safety policy. - Insurance cover. The reporting required during the task. The reporting required at the end of each separate task within the contract and at the end of the contract. The quality assurance procedures which the donor intends to implement. 12. Selection of the contractor. Many donors now insist on competitive tendering but whether or not this is used, a competent contractor must be chosen. He must demonstrate his ability to discharge the contract to the satisfaction of the donor and to the accepted standards expected in humanitarian mine clearance. There are many organizations which claim to be capable of undertaking this work and to invite them all to tender for a contract is unrealistic. The donor can therefore either create his own short list - taking specialist advice if he wishes - or he can invite all companies to pre-qualify and make his short list based on his judgement of the responses. Within the constraints of this technical paper it makes little difference whether the contractor is a commercial company or a non-governmental organization - the competence displayed must be the same. The essentials expected of all contractors is that they demonstrate their ability to undertake the work safely, to the highest possible quality, and as cost-effectively as possible. The means by which this can be achieved is the subject of another paper, entitled Humanitarian Mine Clearance. Quality assurance and mine clearance techniques are inextricably linked. 13. Second level verification. This comprises two possible components which need not both be used, but the assurance is the greater if they are. The first is monitoring and the second is financial retention. 14. Monitoring. This involves the use of an independent observer competent to make judgements on the technical merit of the work on behalf of the donor. He is able to conduct a very wide and thorough assessment of all aspects of the work being undertaken and can make his judgement accordingly. Much of this will be qualitative rather than quantitative. This is a widely used procedure and is an essential component of a whole-system approach to quality assurance. The monitor is, of course, subject to a contract himself and the same care should be taken in drafting it and selecting the monitor as was recommended for the contractor. Some contractors are deeply suspicious of monitors and particularly those who are also competitors for contracting work. The monitor should be entirely independent and, as a clear statement of policy, should not seek any contracting work within the humanitarian mine clearance field. This minimises suspicion of vested interest. 15. Financial retention. This is a principle employed widely in the construction industry in the United Kingdom. Usually 5 per cent of the total contract value is retained by the client for 6 months after completion to ensure that the builder uses his best endeavours during the work and quickly responds to any matters which later require attention. At the end of 6 months, if the client is content, then the funds are released. This is a legitimate quality assurance procedure and it can play an important part in the total quality process. With the exception of Kuwait, this method has not been used in this form for mine clearance. Some donors, however, will only provide funding for a new phase after a monitor has reported favourably in the preceding phase. It may also be linked to satisfactorily meeting the performance milestones that might be specified in the contract document. This is a form of financial retention, although, possibly, not as draconian as the one suggested above. 16. Third level verification. There are two ways in which this can be done. The first is a simple, cheap method which can be used to reassure the people who will use the land or facility which has been cleared. The second is rather more complex and expensive and is a quality control measure which might be required by the donor to demonstrate that the work has been completed properly. 17. Reassurance. In this case the contractor uses the land or facility to demonstrate his confidence that the mines have been removed. In the case of a road, he drives up and down it a few times. Of course, in the process of clearing the road he is progressively travelling up and down it to reach his working location and, in most cases, this will be sufficient to reassure future users. There may be cases, however, when a more formal demonstration of reassurance is required and some contractors already provide this. 18. Quality control. In its simplest form this might involve confirming that the number of mines destroyed matches the number of mines shown in the minefield record. Sadly, this is rarely a realistic option and presumes that a minefield record was made, that is was accurate, that no mines were removed by other before formal work started, and that no new mines have been laid. Otherwise any other form of quality control is likely to be the most expensive component of the whole-system approach to quality assurance and may not always be used. The difficulties of conducting scientific sampling on mine clearance work was briefly addressed earlier and there may be cases where is it impracticable or where it is a waste of money. It is most likely to be used after a particularly high-value task has been completed where the cost can be justified. The procedure would involve a percentage of the ground being rechecked as a sample of the whole. This is superficially attractive, but has many drawbacks - how should the area to be sampled be selected and what technique should be used during the sampling? In addition, what size should the sample be? This method does give a form of quantitative assessment, but its value may be misleading or inaccurate for large areas where the sample size is small and care should be taken before deciding to use it. CERTIFICATION 19. A possible certificate based on the above suggestions is attached. This is but one example and can be varied if required. CONCLUSION 20. Quality is a matter which should be of great concern to all who are involved in the mine clearance industry. Irrespective of whether a commercial contractor or a non-governmental organization is doing the work, he has an obligation to his own professionalism, to the donor, and to those who will practically benefit from his work, to ensure that it is done to the highest possible standards. This brief paper is presented as a discussion document to stimulate debate which may lead to an agreed procedure for determining quality. QUALITY ASSURANCE CERTIFICATE CONTRACT DEFINITION Contract Title: Contract no.: Donor: Contractor: MINEFIELD DEFINITION Location: GR: Lat: Long: Nearest town: Country: Completion report Date: Reference: TASK DEFINITION Dates: Started: Suspended: Ended: Area cleared: ha Located (quantity) Mines: UXO: Other: Destroyed (quality) Mines: UXO: Other: Clearance method used Excavation Depth: mm % of total: Probing Depth: mm % of total: Detectors Type: % of total: Dogs Nos: % of total: Mechanical System: % of total: Other Specify: % of total: Verification Method of verifying that area was safe Date: To be signed by the contractors authorized representative. It is certified that the above details are correct and that work has been undertaken to the standard specified in the contract document. Signed Name Date LEVEL 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE VERIFICATION (To be completed by the monitor) Name: Reg. no.: Organization: Visits to this task No.: Dates: Total time: Monitoring reports Reference: Date: Relevant pages: Were all recommendations implemented by the contractor? If no, attach response Yes/No to this certificate. Are you satisfied, as far as your were able to determine, that the work has been professionally undertaken? Yes/No It is certified that the statements in this Level 2 report are accurate. Signed Name Date LEVEL 3 QUALITY ASSURANCE VERIFICATION (To be completed by the monitor) Name: Reg no.: Organization: Was this task sample tested? Method: Yes/No Area sampled Area % of total Duration ha days Was anything found? If yes (state quantity) Yes/No Mines UXO Scrap kg Recommendation Is remedial action required? Yes/No Is the work acceptable? Yes/No It is certified that the statements in this Level 3 report are accurate. Signed Name Date DONORS CERTIFICATE Financial retention % US$ Release date: Subject to the condition applying to the financial retention, it is accepted that the work has been satisfactorily completed. Signed Name Date