India's Defense Ministry has formed a 10-member Task Force for formulating the parameters with which the government will identify "strategic partners" in the Indian industry for the military sector.
The Task Force, for which the
notification was issued yesterday, will be headed by former Defense
Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief Dr.V.K.Aatre, top
sources said here today.
The panel has been given three
weeks time to formulate the "parameters" based on which the strategic
partners among the Indian industry would be identified, the "modalities"
by which the so identified industry would be co-opted in defense
manufacturing, and the "covenant" under which an understanding will be
achieved between the government and the so-declared industry.
"The panel has technocrats,
lawyers, cost accountants, chartered accountants, certification
agencies, defense ministry and armed forces representatives as members,"
the sources said.
The new Task Force has been
formed based on the recommendations of the Dhirendra Singh Committee
report on changes to be made in Defense Procurement Procedure 2013
(DPP-2013), presented to Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar on July 23,
2015, just 45 days ago.
The Dhirendra Singh panel report
had suggested that the matters raised by it be clarified at the earliest
so that the strategic partnership could be taken forward. "Such a
recommendation goes against the accepted grain of thinking which prefers
competitive bids involving technical and commercial parameters. It is
hence considered desirable that the committee's reasoning be spelt out
in detail," it had said.
The idea of "strategic partners"
in the Indian industry is a revival of the "Raksha Udyog Ratnas' or
'Defense Industry Jewels' as was proposed by the then Kelkar Committee
report in the middle of last decade in the against the backdrop of the
1999 Kargil war and the 2001-02 'Op Parakram' to boost private industry
participation in the the investment intensive defense sector.
Just to understand what the
Dhirendra Singh panel had recommended in July 2015, here are the
relevant portions of its report on "strategic partnership" for your
quick reference:
PARTNERSHIP MODELS
"Having considered the nature of
defense materiel and the configurations of defense industry worldwide we
have come to the inevitable conclusion that if the strengths of private
industry are to be harnessed then they must be done under well defined
models depending upon the strategic needs, quality criticality and cost
competitiveness. Whenever the vendor base is large and competition is
feasible, the competitive bidding process must be followed. There are
cases however where certain platforms are of strategic importance. For
these, we are recommending the 'Strategic Partnership model' for
creating capacity in the private sector on a long term basis. Such a
capacity will be created over and above the capacity and infrastructure
that exists in Public Sector units. This is expected to spur the sectors
towards a more efficient and effective mode of operation. Likewise,
there are cases where quality is critical and vendor base is very
narrow. For these we are recommending a model of 'development
partnership'. These models would depend upon the systems and products
within the ambit of the requisite model.
Strategic Partnership Model
The Committee considers following projects that could be identified for long term partnership:-
Platforms
1. Aircraft - fighter, transport and helicopters and their major systems
2. Warships of stated displacements and submarines and their major systems
3. Armored Fighting Vehicles and their major systems
Weapons
4. Complex weapons which rely on
guidance systems, to achieve precision hits, which may include
anti-ship, air defence, air to air; air to surface, anti-submarine, land
attack.
Networks
5. Command, Control, Communication and Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance
Materials
6. Critical materials ( Titanium alloys, Aluminum alloys, Carbon composites, Nickel/Cobalt alloys, etc.)
In each of these segments,
private sector Strategic Partners (SP) need to be identified through a
well-defined protocol to create capacity in them over and above the
capacity in the Public Sector in these segments. The primary focus of
strategic partners would be to support sustainability and the
incremental improvements in capability of platforms through technology
insertions over their lifetimes. Thus the key competence that one should
be looking at in such partners is (i) their competence in system
engineering; (ii) supply chain management to manage life cycle support;
and (iii) companies that are looking for assured revenue streams based
on such long term partnerships, rather than those who could prefer one
off contracts from time to time.
SPs would be identified and then
become partners with the MoD in their deliberations under Government to
Government negotiations with foreign OEMs for collaboration in the
production of items in the 6 segments identified above.
The selection procedure would obviously be the most crucial aspect of the Model.
It would incorporate the following parameters:-
1. Segmentation of Market – Select just one / two SPs in each segment.
2. Selection to be done through a well-defined and transparent process:
a) Financial Capability. Annual
turnover, Profitability, Net worth, Risk Appetite, appropriate ratio of
program size to annual revenues;
b) Financial Prudence. Credit ratings, quality of disclosures, No CDR status;
c) Technical Capability. Domain
specific capabilities (range and depth), organisational processes,
outside domain large program capability, Global reach / network;
d) R & D Capability Track
record in development of technologies and products, R&D investments
over past five years, R&D center certification and accreditations;
e) Capacity / Infrastructure - quality of infrastructure with regard to global benchmarks;
f) Executive Track Record – Delivery Track Record
g) Ownership Structure – Public / Private, Family / Professional, Promoter driven/widely held.
The selection procedure for such
Strategic Partners is the most crucial element in operationalizing the
idea. The entire scheme rests on it. What has been suggested above are
broad parameters. A Task Force needs to be constituted to lay down the
criteria in detail after studying best practices. We are aware that most
such criteria are used for selecting the best offer in commercial bids.
Our model stops short of commercial bids and would have as target
companies those who may not have been involved in projects under the
identified segments. This is not an insurmountable proposition. A
rational, fair, scientific and transparent procedure can and should be
worked out.
Lest there be lingering doubts on
the compensation package to the SP ('taking the MoD for a ride') – a
rigorous audit, including cost audit mechanism would be instituted. The
contract would allow for inspection of books for the purpose. A strong
data base needs to be generated. The U.S. and French models could be
studied for the purpose where the system has been in vogue for quite
some time.
There are other operational
issues which would need to be clarified so that there is a clear
understanding between the MoD and the SP. These may include:
1. Investment on the basis of assured orders;
2. Cost + mechanism of funding. Program specific Fixed / Variable cost models;
3. Risk sharing – Inflation correction, ERV, Taxes and duties change mechanisms;
4. Risk – Reward model for development and program implementation;
5. Hand holding by Collaborator /
MoD- Joint Review mechanism, mechanisms to deal with unknowns and
imponderables as they surface during the execution phase;
6. Prime contractors (SPs) to be
mandated to develop tier-ized industries as partners, on the same
principles, to accelerate program execution;
7. Encourage teaming agreements between prime contractors and tier-ized industry;
8. Encourage teaming agreements between SPs and DPSUs, because of the latter's head start;
9. Long term covenants between
Government, Strategic Partners and tier-ized partners to guide not only
the first contract (after determination of the segment and SP) but
subsequent ones to follow, so that resources are utilized optimally over
long periods of time.
10. Placed at Annexure II is an elaboration of this idea.
The Committee is conscious that
its recommendations relating to the Strategic Partners which would be
applicable to the 'Buy and Make' category, is of considerable import.
armingind
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.