,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. To me, the most interesting part of the CAG report on Rafale has to do with the process of originally selecting the fighter during the UPA era. CAG says this process was hopelessly flawed.
2. Consider the following: ''Rafale aircraft could not meet 9 Air Staff Qualitative Requirements prescribed in the RFP. Further, it did not submit the data for Manufacturers List of Spares and Engineering Support Package. Due to noncompliance, the TEC rejected Rafale.''
3. ''After obtaining clarification from the vendors, the TEC (Technical Evaluation Committee) in March 2009 upheld its technical evaluation report which again rejected Rafale aircraft.''
4. ''TM (Air) again sought clarification (12 Mar 2009) on the warranty and option clause of the Bids submitted by vendors. After obtaining these clarifications from vendors, TEC again reviewed its report and upheld its decision to reject the bid of M/s DA for Rafale aircraft.''
5. 'On subsequent clarifications obtained from the vendors, out of the 9 ASQR parameters on which Rafale was rejected, M/s DA offered to modify six of the parameters to meet the ASQR requirements. The firm offered to give additional commercial proposal for making these changes''
6. ''But still it could not meet three of the ASQR parameters.''
7. ''Audit noted that the opportunity provided to M/s Dassault Aviation to significantly modify its technical and price bid was in violation of DPP. ''
8. ''But M/s DA was allowed to bring about enhancements of 14 parameters which, ultimately was to cost over ‘XX’ million €. Hence M/s DA was treated preferentially.''
9. ''Two aircraft -Eurofighter and Rafale were cleared based on their presentation in the lab as to how they proposed to meet the shortcomings in meeting certain ASQRs. Therefore the aircraft were technically accepted without evaluating the significant enhancements made.''
10. ''HAL had stated that the French man hours had to be converted to Indian man hours by multiplying M/s DAs quoted man hours by factor of 2.7. But CNC ignored this factor while determining the benchmark price as well as the L-1 vendor.''
11.''This created difficulties later during negotiations with M/s DA when the CNC realized that after applying the factor of 2.7 to the manpower cost of M/s DA it was no longer the L-1 vendor.''
