Resource

The WOME Procurement Competence Map

Three frameworks, nine procurement phases, one line per role. Find the competence-evidence gaps an auditor will find.

Prepared by Steven Sawyers MIExpE VR, Sawyers Global Solutions Limited. Open source, unclassified. Prepared with AI assistance and checked by the author. Not legal, regulatory or safety advice.

This map aligns the three frameworks that govern competence in explosives procurement across nine lifecycle phases. It is step 1 of the Competence Evidence Test already done for procurement roles: for each phase a post covers, it shows what each framework requires.

The three frameworks

WOME procurement competence map: nine lifecycle phases, three frameworks
Lifecycle phaseAQAP-2110 / ISO 9001:2015 (NATO quality)DSA 02.OME duty-holder (UK safety)ESA NOS Key Role 6 (operational competence)
1. Requirement definitionCl. 7.2 Competence: defined, evidenced and managed for personnel whose work affects conformityAcquisition framework: safety case implications captured at requirement stageUnit 6.1: Identify the requirement and specification for ESA
2. Procurement strategyCl. 6.1 Risks and opportunities: strategy aligned to QMS planningStrategy reflects duty-holder accountability and explosives safety constraintsUnit 6.2: Define the procurement strategy for ESA
3. Specification contributionCl. 7.1.6 Organisational knowledge: maintained, accessible, currentTechnical knowledge baseline for ESA characteristicsUnit 6.3: Contribute to requirement and specification identification
4. Supplier identificationCl. 8.4 Control of externally provided processes, products and servicesSupplier safety competence brought into the assurance scopeUnit 6.4: Identify potential suppliers of ESA
5. Supplier technical capabilityCl. 8.4.2 Type and extent of control: evaluate against requirementsTechnical input to supplier qualification (people, not only the QMS)Unit 6.5: Provide explosives-related technical input on suppliers
6. Negotiate and awardCl. 8.4.2 Evaluation against documented requirements and defined criteriaSafety not traded against performance in weighted evaluationUnit 6.6: Negotiate and award contracts for ESA
7. Order placementCl. 8.5.1 Control of production and service provisionRegulated-goods order compliance and audit trailUnit 6.7: Place orders for the supply of ESA
8. Contract managementCl. 9.1.3 Analysis and evaluation: monitor supplier performanceIn-life contract safety monitoring; early-warning dutyUnit 6.8: Manage the contract for the supply of ESA
9. Compliance and close-outCl. 10.2 Nonconformity and corrective actionClosing safety-case actions; audit-defensible records retainedUnit 6.9: Ensure compliance with contract terms for ESA supply

How to use it

  1. List every post in your organisation that touches WOME procurement.
  2. Mark the lifecycle phases each post covers.
  3. For each marked phase, read across the three columns and ask what evidence you hold under each.
  4. Wherever you cannot produce role-specific evidence under all three, you have an open competence-evidence gap. Record it, and decide whether to close, mitigate or accept it with a named owner.

Where the gap shows up in audit. The seams between the columns are owned by no single framework. AQAP-2110 demands competence evidence, DSA 02.OME names the duty-holders, and only the National Occupational Standards specify what competent looks like. A defensible programme puts all three on a single line per role.

Printable version

The one-page PDF edition (May 2026) carries the same map. Erratum: the PDF cites STANAG 4107 Edition 11. The current edition is Edition 14 of 4 June 2025, as shown above.

The analysis behind the map: The WOME Competence Gap: a procurement risk most defence organisations cannot audit.

Want the map applied to your posts?

A scoped two to four week diagnostic produces the role-by-role picture. Start with a one-hour Initial Discussion, £400 + VAT.

Contact SGS