Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 4107
National quality assurance authorities and NATO organizations that ratify and implement the AQAP series; suppliers meet it only through a contract that invokes one of the AQAPs it covers
STANAG 4107 is NATO's agreement for mutual government quality assurance, under which member nations commit to implement the AQAP series it covers (AQAP-2000 through AQAP-4107); it binds nations, not suppliers, directly.
STANAG 4107 is a NATO Standardization Agreement, not a technical specification in its own right. It is the agreement by which NATO member nations mutually accept one another's government quality assurance (GQA) of defence products, and commit to implement the Allied Quality Assurance Publications (AQAP) series as the common basis for that assurance. Its "Aim" is to set out "the process, procedures, terms and conditions" under which one nation's national authority performs GQA "at the request of another NATO member nation or NATO organization," and to standardize how the AQAPs themselves are developed and applied. The methods a reader usually wants - what a quality management system has to look like, what a GQA Representative checks, what evidence a supplier holds - live inside the individual AQAPs, not inside this cover agreement. Read on its own, STANAG 4107 requires almost nothing of a supplier directly: every duty in the text runs to "nations," "NATO organizations" or "Partner Nations," and it reaches a contractor only indirectly, once a nation has implemented it and a contract or tender invokes one of the AQAPs it covers.
STANAG 4107 is explicit that it binds nations and NATO organizations rather than suppliers. Its own statement describes the enclosed agreement as one "which has been ratified by member nations, as reflected in the NATO Standardization Documents Database (NSDD)," and it invites nations that have not reported their position to "advise the NSO of their intention regarding its ratification and implementation." So "is STANAG 4107 mandatory" has no single answer: it depends on whether a given nation has ratified and implemented it, and, for a supplier, on whether a specific contract invokes one of the AQAPs it covers as a result. Partner Nations are also invited to implement the STANAG, but the document is careful to note that "the provision of mutual GQA is reserved for NATO nations and agencies" - a Partner Nation's implementation does not extend to requesting or providing mutual GQA itself.
Under "Agreement," participating nations agree to implement nine AQAPs at named editions: AQAP-2000 (D), AQAP-2070 (C), AQAP-2105 (C), AQAP-2110 (D), AQAP-2131 (C), AQAP-2190 (A), AQAP-2210 (B), AQAP-2310 (B) and AQAP-4107 (B). Under "Implementation of the agreement," nations must have "adequate infrastructure and processes" supporting their National Quality Assurance Authority's role, appoint a GQA focal point, and establish a "competent GQA Representative resource with supporting processes" that implements AQAP-2070. NATO organizations carry a parallel duty: to "have the processes and resources to support the conduct of quality assurance activities across all stages of the lifecycle acquisition process," to appoint a focal point for quality, and to "promote the use of AQAPs for acquisition throughout the supply chain." None of this is written as a duty on a supplier - it is a duty on the nation and on the NATO organizations that run acquisition. NATO's own effective date (NED) is marked "Not applicable," so timing runs entirely from national ratification and implementation, and from whatever a specific contract sets.
Edition 14, promulgated 4 June 2025, supersedes "STANAG 4107, Edition 13, dated 7 November 2023." It reflects the ratification of two refreshed AQAPs, AQAP-2070 and AQAP-4107, "both of which have been reviewed and updated," and it introduces a new one: AQAP-2190, "NATO Quality Assurance Requirements for Disposal." Nations and NATO organizations "are requested to use this contractual QA requirement when contracting for disposal" - the one place this STANAG names a specific point in a product's life, rather than the acquisition process in general. Beyond those three publications, the document says plainly that "all other covered AQAPs remain unchanged and in effect," and that "the nature of the agreement for mutual Government Quality Assurance and the use of AQAPs has not changed." A reader tracking editions should not expect a substantive shift in the mechanism itself.
Nobody is certified against STANAG 4107, and the document names no accreditation, notified-body or self-declaration scheme. Its only stated check is on itself: "This STANAG is to be reviewed in accordance with AAP-03. The result of the review is to be recorded within the NSDD." That is a periodic review of the agreement's own currency, not an audit of any organisation or product.
The mechanism the STANAG actually sets up is government quality assurance: one nation's national authority performs GQA of defence products at another nation's or NATO organization's request. What that surveillance activity looks for, and what evidence it expects, is described in the AQAPs the STANAG covers, principally AQAP-2070 for GQA guidance and AQAP-2110 for a supplier's quality management system, not in this cover agreement.
STANAG 4107 names no test method, no product requirement and no pass/fail criterion of its own - that detail lives entirely in the nine AQAPs it covers. It also names no supplier obligation directly: the closest it comes is asking nations and NATO organizations to "promote the use of contractual AQAPs for acquisition," which is a duty to promote, not a duty placed on a supplier by this document.
STANAG 4107 itself gives a supplier nothing to implement in software: it is an agreement between nations about mutual government quality assurance, and the testable content sits in whichever AQAP a contract actually names. Where ComplyTrain fits is the paperwork trail behind that AQAP: documented procedures and a quality management system for AQAP-2110, project-specific quality plans for AQAP-2310 or AQAP-2210, or the records a disposal contract needs under AQAP-2190. In each case that means controlled documents, training records showing the people running the work are competent, internal audits, and corrective-action records a GQA Representative or auditor can check against the contract's requirement.
ComplyTrain does not perform government quality assurance itself, is not a party to the mutual recognition STANAG 4107 creates, and cannot make one nation recognise another's GQA - that stays a government-to-government arrangement under this STANAG. What applies to a specific programme, and which of the nine covered AQAPs a contract invokes, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by this page. Our standards explorer shows what else sits alongside STANAG 4107 - if you are weighing up what a tender actually requires, we're glad to talk it through.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 4107 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
Not on its own. A STANAG binds a nation once that nation has ratified and implemented it, and it reaches a supplier only when a contract or tender invokes one of the AQAPs it covers. Whether it applies to a given programme is a question for the contract, not for this page.
STANAG 4107 is the cover agreement: it commits nations to implement the AQAP series but contains no quality-management or technical content itself. The individual AQAPs (AQAP-2110, AQAP-2310, AQAP-2210, AQAP-2131, AQAP-2105, AQAP-2190, AQAP-2000, AQAP-2070 and AQAP-4107) are where the actual requirements live.
Two refreshed publications, AQAP-2070 and AQAP-4107, and one new addition, AQAP-2190 on quality assurance requirements for disposal. The document states that all other covered AQAPs are unchanged and that the underlying mutual GQA mechanism has not changed either.
No. STANAG 4107 describes no certification or accreditation scheme for a supplier or product. Its only stated check is a periodic review of the agreement's own currency under AAP-03. NATO does not certify organisations or products against a STANAG.
The STANAG itself is a cover agreement and does not set requirements for any particular stage. Its one specific mention of a lifecycle stage is disposal, where the newly added AQAP-2190 is a contractual requirement nations are asked to use "when contracting for disposal." Other lifecycle stages are addressed, if at all, by whichever of the nine covered AQAPs a contract names.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.