Tag Archives: report

Uncategorized

DRDO labs to be overhauled, expert committee set to review charter for futuristic battles

Leave a comment

By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau Aug 26, 2020
Synopis
To be led by Prof P Ramagopal Rao, Director IIT Delhi, the select panel will delve deep into the nature of work being carried out by each lab under the organisation and will present a report to redefine the charter of work being carried out and minimize technology overlaps.
NEW DELHI: The Defence Research and Defence Organisation (DRDO) is going for a deep overhaul of its laboratories and has set up an expert panel to review their charter of duties to prepare the armed forces for futuristic battlefields.

To be led by Prof P Ramagopal Rao, Director IIT Delhi, the select panel will delve deep into the nature of work being carried out by each lab under the organisation and will present a report to redefine the charter of work being carried out and minimize technology overlaps.

Interestingly, the panel also includes representation from the armed forces, with Deputy Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal Sandeep Singh as a member. Others include ISRO Director S Somnath and two representatives from within the DRDO.
The committee is to present a roadmap within 45 days with the specific directive to “redefine the charter of duties of labs on the current and futuristic battlefield scenario; minimise the overlay of technologies amongst the labs.”

The study could pave the way for a reorganisation of the organisation that has a network of 52 labs across the country engaged in a variety of projects – from nuclear missiles to development of fighters and UAVs, food products for soldiers, data analytics and laser technology.

The last major overhaul of the organisation took place after the Rama Rao Committee report of 2008 that had suggested that DRDO be reorganised into clusters of labs based on the role they were tasked with. Seven clusters were set up like missiles, armaments, aeronautical systems and life sciences.

The Rama Rao Committee had recommended the setting up of a Defence Technology Commission, a younger age profile for scientists, more involvement of the organization in defence procurements, more foreign collaborations, a dedicated research board, restructuring of labs and a commercial arm of the research body.
It had also recommended that DRDO concentrate efforts in 8-10 critical areas suiting its existing resources and that 11 labs related to life sciences be transferred out of DRDO to other departments.

Drdo

‘Akash missile system can’t be trusted during war’: Degraded by govt defence agencies, loopholes in strategic weapon system threaten national security

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Dec 02, 2019 18:22:43 IST

Other squadrons reported frequent unserviceability of mobile surface-to-air Akash Missile system and long duration downtime, which means that the missiles are dysfunctional and may not be cocked and loaded against enemy in contingency

Several government agencies, including missile manufacturer Bharat Dynamics Limited, Bharat Electronics Limited, did not tell the truth to the government about malfunctioning Akash Missile system and poor quality of spare parts provided by the private vendors

CAG was perhaps far-sighted, when in a 2017 report, the national auditor observed that Akash Missiles cannot be trusted in situation of a war

On 3 June, 2018, Akash Missile’s Transportation and Loading Vehicle (TLV), parked at an Air Force Squadron, was jolted after a sudden burst of tube followed by shearing off wheel bolts due to impact. The incident shocked Air Force headquarters. The Air Force officials wanted not only wanted the routine analysis of the incident, but also an in-depth discussion with Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), a multi-disciplinary Missile System laboratory under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to unearth issues hampering the functioning of the strategic weapon system.

More than a month later, another squadron reported cracks on air intake caps of dummy missiles. An investigation by Firstpost revealed that the incidents were followed by other squadrons reporting frequent unserviceability of mobile surface-to-air Akash Missile system and long duration downtime, which means that the missiles are dysfunctional and may not be cocked and loaded against enemy in contingency. This incident forced Guided Weapon Maintenance Department of Air Force on 5 September 2018 to raise the issue, where they clearly stated that the “Squadrons have been reporting frequent unserviceability of Missiles and it has been noticed that time taken to resolve these failures is considerably high due to delay in analysis of failures.”

The sheer inertia of government defence enterprise involved in Akash Missile production and maintenance reached to such an alarming level that at least three squadrons of Akash in February 2019 reported that missile system remained down or simply broken and sometimes even out of order during 90 percent of the time since their date of commissioning. These squadrons were commissioned between 2013-2015 to counter Chinese aggression.

Multiple government agencies, including Missile manufacturer Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) which comes under the Ministry of Defence, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) which is responsible for radars and maintenance and the DRDO, did not tell the truth to the government about malfunctioning Akash Missile system and poor quality of spare parts provided by the private vendors.

The malfunction of Integrated Air Compressor and Storage Facility (IACSF) revealed another shocker and the Air Force mentioned it on record that the IACSFs of Akash Missile System units are unserviceable due to wobbling and vibration, pneumatic leakage, breaking of mounting pads and bolts. A missile had failed to take off during combined guided weapon firing exercise known as ‘CROSSBOW-18’ and a team of Missile System Quality Assurance Agency (MSQAA), BDL and DRDL was constituted to investigate the failure.

MSQAA is an independent inspection Agency under the administrative and functional control of Director General Aeronautical Quality Assurance, which comes under the Department of Defence Production of Defence Ministry. The incidents of leakage from fuel tanks and leakage in pressurised Missile containers were taken so lightly that the Air Force, responsible to secure the nation from aerial threats, was forced to direct to the DRDL, BEL and BDL that present configuration of certain systems of Akash Missile will not be acceptable for future squadrons, which are under the process of procurement. The Air Force, BDL, BEL and DRDL are yet to respond to a questionnaire sent by Firstpost on 24 November.

Details expose criminal act by government defence enterprises

If there is an emergent situation, several Akash sqaudron may not be able to launch counter offensive because deficiencies in many of the system including hydraulic oil leakage and container pressure leakage, which is pending since 2017. The complaints received from Air Force headquarters, Eastern Air Command and other Akash field units reveals there is no back-to-back agreement with vendors for equipment under warranty, making it difficult to repair the faults. Documents reviewed by Firstpost showed that almost all squadrons have expressed that they are unable to get proper feedback from BEL on repairing the faults in Missile System and on problems plaguing Akash Missiles which Indian agencies are ill-equipped to resolve. Surprisingly the field engineers, who are supposed to rectify the critical snags, are not even aware of any action plan.

Documents further said: “Currently majority of the Akash field engineers are working to pass information about issues without any tangible technical output. The untrained and poorly equipped field engineers are neither aware of any corrective action plan nor they are committed.”

The documents also pointed to massive delay in supply of spares for Missile System, virtually grounding them for for six months to a year. Air Force in a meeting had informed that most of the problems reported in 2017 were pending for over a year now. The documents also pointed at the repairing of Akash trailers which are covered under annual maintenance contract. It said: “Akash Trailers serviceability is poor and some cases spares supplied to Akash Missile units are not configured as per system requirement which is affecting equipment serviceability in case of failure.”

Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) the manufacturer of Akash Missile has not been able to resolve three important issues for the last two to three years. BDL, founded in 1970, is a government enterprise under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence. It is learnt that BDL was told in high level meeting convened last year to come out with solid plan after conducting an investigation and study of faults in Akash Missile System within a month on long delays of critical faults. Even the investigation to unearth and address the issues was delayed.’


The Air Force has refused to pay for new maintenance contract for certain Akash Missile squadrons as the old ones expired in September 2019. They argued that missile systems in several squadrons were left idle for more than a year. Instead, it had asked for extension of warranty for certain squadrons which have been dysfunctional for 17 to 15 months in the last two years. Air Force asserted since system was down and faults were neither rectified nor replaced, it violated the maintenance contract. Air Force is learnt to have said that “during the warranty period, the seller shall either replace or rectify the failed goods free of charge within 30 days of notification of such defects. As per article of the contract, warranty of the equipment would be extended by such duration from time the buyer has reported such unserviceabilities till the time seller has restored the status of the buyer’s satisfaction.”

Red tapeism in government defence enterprises hurt national security

Firstpost investigation also revealed gross inefficiency of government defence agencies BEL, BDL and DRDL to address the problem in Akash Missile System. Documents reveal that meetings after meetings were convened on the issues but the government defence enterprises couldn’t satisfactorily answer the questions raised by Air Force. These government defence enterprises have been passing the buck. They also cheated Air Force by providing substandard and fake spares.

A meeting earlier this year chaired by Air Vice Marshal Bhanoji Rao pointed at severe negligence in handling Akash Missile System which may have serious ramifications in contingency. Documents revealed that certain spares, especially those of sub-vendors (procured by BEL) were being received at Akash Missile System units without ‘Quality Assurance’ certification and on a few instances it came to light that these spares were old and fake. In a letter, it was noted: “On few instances it has been noticed that the items were not new/authentic.”

Air Vice Marshal Rao clearly told his team at the Air Force not to accept spares without ‘Quality Assurance’ certification. The meeting also revealed a lack of expertise of government-owned defence enterprises which are acting merely as a supplier of equipment after procuring it from domestic and foreign vendors. It basically means that these government enterprises are acting like a payment facilitators. Their complicity in this entire saga was further exposed when government defence enterprises officials told the senior Air Force officials that sub-vendors (private companies supplying spares) were not willing to share their design documents.

An appalled Air Vice Marshal asked, if the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) is the authority then it must have intellectual property rights of all designs related to Akash Missile System. Obviously, the defence agencies representatives were not aware about it since they never took the pain to look into the agreements and promised the Air Force to look into the matter to ascertain whether these rights were with vendors. A promise was made to list all major vendors for unhindered supply of spares to overcome single vendor situation. As far as BEL is concerned documents said: “Almost all squadrons have expressed that they are unable to get proper feedbacks from BEL on progress and plan of action of pending faults.”

The meeting chaired by Air Vice Marshal Rao also discussed high failure rate of one of the systems of Akash Missile, lacunae in analysis of faults and mismatch in software versions used for the this strategic weapon.

Another major loophole, which highlights the non-seriousness of defence agencies, is the contract with the private vendors. The agreements are more favorable to private parties putting Akash Missile System in jeopardy. Documents flagged these concerns further pointing out that all the vendor supplied items are outside their warranty obligations and in certain cases supplied spares are not configured as per system requirements. Some spares for Akash Missiles are not fit and functional and this is affecting the equipment serviceability in case of failure.

It appears that careless handling of most critical weapons has been going on for a long time. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) was perhaps far-sighted when in a 2017 report, the national auditor observed that Akash Missiles cannot be trusted in situation of a war. CAG had categorically stated that Akash missile system delivered by BEL were deficient in quality and 30% missiles failed the test.

“Audit found that the Strategic missile system delivered by BEL were deficient in quality. Out of 80 missiles received up to November 2014, 20 missiles were test fired during April-November 2014. Six of these missiles i.e., 30 percent, failed the test. Preliminary failure analysis report revealed that the missiles fell short of the target, had lower than the required velocity, and also there was malfunctioning of critical units like Servo Control Unit and Connector. Two missiles had failed to take off because the booster nozzle had failed. These deficiencies posed an operational risk during hostilities. Two missiles had failed to take off because the booster nozzle had failed. These deficiencies posed an operational risk during hostilities.” CAG report had said.

Firstpost investigation showed that after the CAG report, the squabbling between government defence enterprises had come to light. Eight critical snags in Akash Missile Systems were reported after the CAG report which were pending for three-seven months. CAG had recommended that Ministry of Defence needs to ensure better synchronisation of the various activities and agencies involved in such strategically important projects to ensure their timely completion and quality of Strategic Missiles also needs improvement so as to bring down failure rate.

Notwithstanding, many snags were not rectified citing lack of spares. The Air Force anguished over lackadaisical attitude of BEL and BDL has firmly directed them to resolve all internal issues immediately and ensure that no Missile is kept unserviceable due to their internal problems.

Uncategorized

RTI to DRDO for Role in 7900 Cr IACCS Project Scam in BEL

Leave a comment

To,                                                                                                   17 June 2019

Shri Deepak Mishra,Scientis F, CPIO,

Room No 314, DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence

DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg

New Delhi-110011       

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of  M/s R D Konsultants,  C-9, Vasant Kunj, Local Shopping Complex,, Delhi – 110070. As per enclosed CVO, BEL investigation that firm name was suggested by DRDO for consultancy work of Approx 7900 Cr IACCS project. In investigation few documents revealed that M/s R D Konsultants claimed that the firm involved in consultancy in DRDO projects worth 3000 Cr. In one document of BEL two DRDO officials name is reflected while in processing of awarding consultancy assignment of said IACCS project

  1. WhetherM/s R D Konsultants claimed of consultancy assignments in DRDO past and present projects are correct (document enclosed )Yes or No
  1. If yes then correct value of consultancy only amount paid by DRDO to M/s R D Konsultants till date.
  2. Please provide that M/s R D Konsultants Partnership Company has any kind of registration in DRDO. Yes/No
  3. Please confirm that the names of DRDO officials Shri S K Singh, Additional CCE, Shri M S Rathore, Scientist E are reflected in BEL tender processing documents are correct (document enclosed) Yes/No
  4. Please provide the copy of BEL request for these officers to attend such tender processing meeting if any yes/No
  5. If no then these officer can attend such tender processing meeting unofficially yes/no

Note – the matter is related to very high value corruption Rs 7900 cr as per media reports published, it is observed that as per CVO investigation report that DRDO officials were played a vital role in  awarding consultancy assignment to M/s R D Konsultants  approx 16 cr. 

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed –  BEL tender processing document page where two DRDO name is reflected

   M/s R D Konsultants document where he claimed the work.

 Registration Number           MODEF/R/2019/51863

BEL CVO Recommendations

BHARAT ELECTRONICS

CORPORATE VIGILANCE

No.:21328/399&426/BEL./GAD/18-19

Date 29th March 2019

SUB: Detailed enquiry done on the allegation of irregularties & Gross Violations in the appointment of Design Consultants and in the execution of IACCS Project.

This has a reference to email complain: dated 31st   August 2017 received at Corporate Vigilance from Shri‘ Mimish Aggarwal, Advocate. Supreme Court of India regarding scam in NCS unit of BEL. Ghaziabad in the 10 construction sites projects allotted for defence and also regarding appointment of Mr Manish Goyal. Corporate Vigilance has verified the identity of the complainant . The complainant was verified through the stated email id advn1maggarwaI@gmail.com.

A Fact verification request was sent to the V0/GAD vide ref. 21328/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 07.09.2017. Based on the request of VO/GAD vide email dated 28″‘ September 2017, to appoint technical personnel for investigating the case, Corporate Vigilance has constituted the following Technical committee vide Ref No. 21328,/399/BEI./GAD/17-18 dated 14th  December 2017‘.

a)   Shri Satyanarayana H N, Sr DGM (Civil/BG)

b)   Shri. Y.K Sharma then DGM (lACCS-Infra)/GAD

c)   Shri M M Roy, then DGM (Vigilance/Central GAD & Delhi Offices]

d)   Shri.Anil Kumar Gupta, then DGM&VO (NCS&SCCS]

There was a request from GM (NCS) vide letter ref 13708/143)/GM(NCS),/GAD dated 14th December 2017 regarding importance of Shri. Y K. Sharma in the IACCS project and also there was an email dated 20th  February 2018 from Shri. Satyanarayana HR. Sr DGM (Civil/BG), regarding his ill health, which were received at Corporate Vigilance. Hence the committee has been reconstituted vide Ref. 21323/399/BEL/GAD/17-18 dated 01st  March 2018, with the following members, after discussion with Shri. Charan Singh, the .then GM (Radar & Unit Head) for the nomination of Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja. AGM (CS/GAD).

a)   Shri. Arun Kumar Raheja, AGM (CS/GAD)

b)   Shri. Syed Shakir Hussein, DGM (Civil Estate) /Bg.Cx

c)   Shrl Madan Mohan Roy then DGM (Vigilance /Central GAD & Delhi Offices]

The above committee has to make an independent verification of the complaint, study the contracts pertaining to the same and submit its report The technical committee has visited the —— site on 22.03.2018 & 23.03.2018. The committee had failed and deviated from the main complaint and submitted its two page perfunctory Report pertaining only to —— site without proper investigation vide nil ref dated 20.03.2019.

Copy of the report is enclosed as Annexure-A. The technical committee’s report was irrelevant and does not cover the allegations of the total complaint The enquiry done by the technical committee pertains only to —— site without going into the allegations and details contained in the complaint

As the V0’s report was not Comprehensive and incomplete, this has necessitated appointing a Senior Officer of repute for conducting the investigation in total. Corporate Vigilance had appointed Shri. MM Pandey GM [PS], the senior officer of repute, as investigation officer, to investigate the above‘ matters related to cases vide Ref 21328/399/BEL/GAD/18-19″dated dared 18th July 2018.

The investigation officer [IO) & GM [P5] had submitted a detailed report on 03-10-2018                        

There are very important observations made by the IO in his inquiry report, in the subject investigation. After careful study of IO’s report» such observations are concurred and agreed upon by Corporate Vigilance. Important observations from IO’s report are enclosed

The lapses and serious violations observed are enclosed

After examination of Technical committee report. Fact verification  report of Mr  MM Roy, VO/GAD and detailed investigation report of IO & GM {P5} and related documents’ the following are observations of Corporate Vigilance. ‘ –

Corporate Vigilance Observations;

  1. As per BPE guidelines given under letter no BPE/GL/025,178,!Prodn./PCR/2/77,/BPE/Prodn. Dtt 15 July, 1978. Which was  circulated under” CVC circular No. 31.-IRC 1 dated 10.01.1983, for any new projects expansions, modernization/ modification of the existing projects involving an expenditure of Rs. 5 crores and above, “the final selection and commissioning of the consultant should be done with the approval of the board of public sector enterprises”. In the subject case of appointment of M/s RD Konsultants during 2011 & 2013, the files are approved bv CMD. However board approvals were not taken in the subject cases.
  2. As per CVC guidelines, the pre-qualification  public notice should be issued to enlist names -of suitable consultants. However the same was not Followed by the committee and hence CVC guidelines in this regard was found violated.

3)          As per noting mentioned by Shri P.K. Bhola, the then DGM[Marketing), at the initial stages, BEL has taken the support from M/s DRDO citing non expertise in the field of underground structure, and went on to appoint M/s RD Konsultants  on nomination and adhoc basis for the preparation of Preliminary Project Report  at a cost of Rs 13.23 Lakhs. However there were no “documents or written correspondences are available in the file, indicating the recommendation of DRDO. As per above CVC guidelines “Even though individually such works are less than Rs 5 Crores, it is necessary that the appointment of consultant should not be made arbitrary or ad-hoc. In the subject case, the CVC guidelines with respect to appointment of consultant was found violated.

4)          The value of contract awarded to Mfs RD Konsultants during 2013 is Re. 15.04 Crores. The Scope of work includes

a]    Preparation of draft detailed project report of all 10 sites including cost estimates on non-exceeding basis with conceptual design of structure and services, geotechnical and topographical surveys and preparation of final detailed project report for all the 10 sites.

b]    Detailed design engineering of structures and services, preparation of working drawings tender documents etc.

c]     Regular designer supervision and submission of inputs/ working drawings /documents for work to be executed at all 10 sites up to completion and handing over of sites to user

5)          It is observed that, . there were suppression and concealment of facts by the Committee, in the proposal initiated during 2013, with respect of appointment of Consultants during 2011, for preparation of Preliminary Project Report. It is pertinent to mention that in the proposal for appointment of consultants during 2011, there is a noting from Sr.DGM(F)/CO that as per CVC guidelines issued vide Ref 011/VGL./063-134657 dated 24th   June 2011,  if M,/s RD Konsultants is hired.as consultant for preparing preliminary project report then he cannot be considered for future similar re1uirements for IACCS project. Though the proposal was agreed by CMD, these facts are not brought in the consecutive file raised and the committee have succeeded to give order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants. ‘

6)          Because of concealment of information wrt previous appointment and delinking of old files and notings, led to the misrepresentation and concealment of Fads  which resulted in placing of order on prefixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants though open tender has been called for formality.

7)          During the Open tender, though 26 agencies have responded to expression of interest, it was reduced to 6 agencies after pre qualification. These points are brought in detail in IO’s report lt is observed that the committee during the initial screening has brought down 26 agencies to 14 agencies with shallow scrutiny and with total arbitrariness, as-explained-by lO. After presentations further screening has resulted in qualifying only 6 agencies. It is pertinent to mention that after presentations M/s Super Dynamics was disqualified citing only two years turnover against required pre-qualification of 3 year turnover. However preferential treatment was given to M / s RD Konsultants and the same prequalification criteria was not applied uniformly especially to M/s RD Konsultants. This shows a clear cut case of vendor favouritism.

8)          During evaluation of prequalification criteria, the committee had violated the CVC guidelines and company’s work contract procedures with respect to evaluation of documents with respect to turnover submitted by M/5 RD Konsultants, non-evaluation of relevant documents pertaining to works completed by M/s RD Konsultants but only taken on face value and non-visit of sites completed by Mfs RD Konsultants. The details are brought out in the I0’s report enclosed at Annexure-C. It appears that wrongful clearance was provided to M/s RD Konsultants and the committee had facilitated M.s RD  Konsultrants for-prequalification by violating the Company‘ s procedures,  to place the order on pre-fixed vendor M/s RD Konsultants.

9)          The committee during evaluation of pre-qualification criteria had created confused trends by changing the pre-qualification criteria twice without anv reason and during such changes, post facto approvals are taken from CMD forcing the management to committee’s decision. The dilution of prequalification criteria by the committee had subsequently led to the qualification of M/s RD Konsultants. It is observed that the pre-qualification criteria were not defined properly at the initial stages of tender. In this subject case, it is a clear cut and definitive violation of CV(I guidelines. .

10)        It is further observed, the agency M/s RD Konsultants was established during April 2010

Recommendations:

  1. To blacklist M/s RD Konsultants for the fraudulent transactions with M/s BEL and also as the agency had involved in collusion of interest by executing the works through his affiliates M/s CS constructions Pvt Ltd, through subcontracting from M/s L&T. which has resulted in conflict of interest in the transactions with BEL . Financial penalty to be levied on M/s RD Konsultants as one way of punishment.
  • Disciplinary Proceedings to be initiated on the committee members   for violating company’s procedures   & CVC guidelines and facilitated the selection of M/s RD Konsultants during evaluation of prequalification, without scrutinizing the submission of works experience, site visits and clearing the fake turn over documents of M/s RD Konsultants. Theviolations were brought in the Corporate Vigilance observations points 1-15.

The following committee members are to be held responsible even though few of the delinquent officers are retired

  1. R K Handa then GM(NCS)     – Retired
  2. Gurjeet Singh then Sr. DGM(CS) – Retired
  3. T.K. Moitra    then DGM(F&T)
  4. Virender Kumar    then DGM(AC) CS
  5. Saleem Parveez.    Manager (Civil) CS

3     With respect to appointment of Mr. Manish Goyal, it is observed that his experience falls short of minimum criteria of 10 years. These facts are not checked by HR/GAD. Disciplinary Proceedings on Shri. Dibyendu Bidyanta, AGM(HR&A) & Shri. B.K. Pant, DGM (HR&A)  who are involved in the recruitment of Shri. Manish Goyal, as per CDA rules. Mr. Manish Goyal shall be kept under suspension henceforth for fair conduct of department/legal proceedings.

4     The unit has not prepared their own instructions and procedure duly approved by the board for the appointment of consultants to ensure that the selection is made with maximum attention to the suitability, competence and proven track record.

  • CCTVs installed at the behest of vigilance has not kept in proper record which led to non-maintenance of measurement books, subleasing and collusion of parties.
  • It is important to mention that IACCS is a time bound project of armed forces viz Air Force. Hence care to be taken to ensure customer get real value for money procedural proprietaries are maintained, no collusion of interest and involve customer at all possible levels, abiding by CVC guidelines and no corrupt practices are involved, in such important projects.

CVO

PMO

DNA SPECIAL: Defence PSU BEL suspends internal probe team that exposed corruption

Leave a comment

The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.

The defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has suspended its three-member investigation panel, who had unearthed irregularities in the Indian Air Force’s confidential Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project, citing them of acting in “prejudicial” manner that was against the company’s interest.

The investigation panel in its report had pointed irregularities in awarding consultancy contract to a private firm RD Konsultants for Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project at 10 locations.

The report had stated: “A company that came into existence in April 2010 showed its employees had an experience of five years in 2013.”
DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in an April 3 report (‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’).

It was also found a BEL senior officer PK Bhola who was behind awarding contract to the private vendor to prepare a Preliminary Project Report, later joined the same company after his retirement. The PSU awarded RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR in 2011 and then again brought as the design consultant in 2013, violating laid out norms.

Also the role of senior Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) officers is under the scanner since it was DRDO which recommended the name of RD Konsultant to BEL, although it was done informally.
Sources said that after the scam came out in public domain, the inquiry committee headed by MM Pandey was suspended and all the three members, including Pandey were issued show cause notice and were put on suspension. The committed was set up by the BEL’s Chief Vigilance officer (CVO) Siva Kumar. After Kumar’s tenure ended in April, Shrikant Walgad, an IAS officer of the Haryana Cadre, took over charge as CVO. Kumar before his tenure end had submitted the inquiry report.

Further it is also alleged that instead of taking action against the corrupt officers, BEL Chairman MV Gowtama suspended the investigation team members. “Kumar in his note dated March 29, 2019 sent to Chairman BEL, Ministry of Defence and the Chief Vigilance Commission had alleged deep-rooted corruption recommending strong action against erring officers and related firms,” said a source.

The phone calls and emails to BEL remained unanswered till the time the article is going for print.
The crackdown against the probe team started after Kumar, the CVO who was appointed by CVC, had established in the investigation report alleged irregularities and had recommended BEL to management for immediate action against suspected eight corrupt officers.

Laid Bare
DNA had exposed irregularities in awarding contracts in defence public sector Bharat Electronics Ltd in an April 3 report titled ‘Bharat Electronics bent norms to favour private firm: Report’

Uncategorized

RTI to BEL on Rs 7900 Cr Scam News published in First Post

Leave a comment

To                                                                                                                        28-04-2019

Mr. Udaya Shankara K S AGM (Marketing)

Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office,

Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,

 Bangalore – 560 045

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  of news series published in First Post Apr 02, 2019 -Bharat Electronics in the dock for  compromising  confidential IAF project, favouring one vendor, BEL s internal inquiry report reveals

 

  1. Whether CVO, BEL investigated and prepared any report on IACCS project for irregularity and compromising   in such national security implementation. Yes or No
  2. If yes, then CVO, BEL submitted report to CVC or CBI or any other GOI agencies. Yes or No
  3. If yes, then provide name of agency and date of submission of said report.
  4. Current status of the report.
  5. Copy of any denial or other written communication provided to First post.
  6. Provide the name of BEL official who recommended the recruitment of  Manish Goyal Manager, NCS-infra

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,

Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Uncategorized

BEL allegedly violated string of norms to award contracts to German, Finnish firms; ex-CMD, two retired defence officials under scanner

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Apr 09, 2019 – Firstpost

New Delhi: Defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) handling Indian Air Force’s (IAF) confidential Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) awarded a sub-system contract without floating global tender to a German company Mueller Safe GmbH, which had produced only 75 pieces of valves used for such installation.

Another company Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH was also selected by BEL for a contract despite submitting the technical proposal after closing time of bid. A Finland-based company Temet OY was given an award on a single tender basis. Interestingly, Temet OY and Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH were already mentioned in a detailed project report of IACCS prepared by M/S RD Konsultants in 2013, raising serious questions over conflict of interest. It is learnt that two BEL officers currently working on IACCS project are also under the scanner of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which recently received source based inputs regarding their activities.

These facts emerging from documents and BEL’s internal inquiry report raise serious questions that Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) rules and BEL’s own purchase procedures 2016, were allegedly violated in the entire process of the project contracts, which began when the UPA government was in power. As reported by Firstpost on 2 April, BEL has come under the cloud by its own inquiry report for allegedly favouring project design consultant M/S RD Konsultants.

Documents reviewed by Firstpost shows BEL, in the gross violation of purchase procedure, awarded plant and machinery contracts worth hundreds of crores to foreign firms including Temet OY of Finland, Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH and Mueller Safe of Germany. No open or global tender was floated to select the vendors. Sources confirmed that the government is likely to ask investigative and enforcement agencies to probe into alleged irregularities in hiring design consultant, the award of contracts for the plant and machinery and role of the serving and retired officers in the process.

After Firstpost mailed a detailed questionnaire to MV Gowtama, chairman and managing director (CMD) of BEL, his office said BEL follows standard procedures, guidelines and its business practices conform to C&AG and CVC guidelines.

“The contracts for any project are awarded through competitive tendering and based on capabilities and capacities of partners/vendors. Hence prima facie BEL does not see any irregularity,” the BEL CMD’s office said.

Temet OY, Finland citing non-disclosure agreement refused to comment on the contract and chose not to respond on working arrangements and details about its association with M/S RD Konsultants. It, however, claimed M/S RD Konsultants was not Temet’s agent.

“We can confirm that M/S RD Konsultants mentioned below is not and has not been an authorised Temet dealer. Of course, if there is an official investigation in progress, we will cooperate with the relevant authorities,” Tero Hanhinen from Temet OY said.

Temet OY though conveniently suppressed the fact that two of its officers, Likka Elias Kivisarri and Adel Velic were accompanied by M/S RD Konsultants’ Vikram Parvathoju to BEL office from 6 to 8 August 2018 for technical discussion with defence PSU officers.

Questionnaire sent to Pro Hub and Mueller Safe, Germany, seeking comments went unanswered. M/S RD Konsultants did not respond to a detailed questionnaire sent on 31 March.

Deal with IACCS design consultant’s foreign affiliates raises a stink

The design firm M/S RD Konsultants in the detailed project report had mentioned that it was working with several foreign companies including Temet OY, Finland and Pro Hub, Germany. The fact has rattled BEL’s internal investigators, who alleged that decision to go with a single vendor is surprising as the design consultant is questionable and requires further probe. The design consultant selected for all 10 sites has total control in the choice of sub-systems like electronic items, building management system and other sensitive hardware. By sidestepping the procurement procedure, BEL did not go for open or global tender for the procurement.

As per BEL purchase procedure para 10.1.7: “Open tenders shall be resorted to in case of non-production/ non project materials estimated to cost Rs 1 crore and above. The time allowed for receiving quotations against open tenders can be fixed, depending upon the geographical area covered, effort required to be put in by the vendors and other relevant factors, however shall not be less than 7 days. In case of global tenders, the notice will also be published in Indian Trade Journal and sent to Indian Missions abroad deemed necessary for adequate response in addition to the press advertisement and BEL website.”

None of these guidelines was followed by BEL in the procurement of equipment of IACCS and the competitive bidding for all 10 operation sites was surreptitiously eliminated and firms directly/indirectly linked with the design consultant were roped in. This is what BEL’s inquiry report had feared. The report mentioned Temet OY, Finland is represented in India by Stahl Tecniks Private Limited, which is directly/ indirectly linked to M/S RD Konsultants. One of the past directors of Stahl Tecniks was Suruchi Totala, who was also director of RD Designs LLP that was floated in 2015 by M/S RD Konsultants partner SK Anand. Now, the RD Designs LLP is in the process of shutting the shop. The BEL’s report also alleges that being the single vendor for all 10 sites, the design consultant carried out works to make sure that it suits the private vendors of plant and machinery of its choice.

“The civil design for the underground structures would have been carried out keeping in mind the various sub-systems to be installed inside. For example, if blast doors of M/S Temet, Finland are chosen that all the openings for the doors would have been designed suiting the doors from Temet. Same would be the case for hydraulic lifts, air conditioning ducts, opening for blast valves etc. Hence either the systems selected by the consultants have to be used or else minor/major modifications would have to be carried out in the civil structure for interfacing any alternate make sub-system. This also substantiates the fact that if minimum two consultants had been hired then at least the two consultants selected would have proposed multiple vendors for the various sub-systems which would have led to healthy competition between various vendors leading to competitive biddings for various sub-systems,” BEL’s internal inquiry report said.

As indicated in the internal inquiry report, after submission of detailed project report, the IACCS contract signed between BEL and IAF had no other choice but to include several of these companies against the requirement with a condition that something equivalent could also be explored. The CVC guidelines are very clear that any purchase order above Rs 1 crore should be concluded through the tendering process and for foreign vendor’s global tender should be floated. The opaque procurement process of BEL was orchestrated in such a way that it gives an impression of a level playing field by exploring other alternatives other than the vendor already mentioned in the detailed project report.

Documents reviewed by Firstpost reveals that a smokescreen was created by constituting a technical committee within the BEL for procurement of plant and machinery for IACCS. On 24 May 2017, BEL chairman and managing director (CMD) MV Gowtama formed the technical panel to explore and identify vendors for the equipment for IACCS complexes (details withheld). This was an interesting turn of event because BEL purchase procedure, 2016, does not mention the constitution of a technical committee to explore, finalise and recommend the vendors. Nevertheless, the technical committee chaired by Umesh Chandra with Pugazhenthi R, BP Pahuja, Subbarao G, Prashant Ranjan Maurya and Udit Agarwal as members were tasked to finalize specifications, identification, shortlisting of original equipment manufacturers/ vendors for supply, finalization of quotation for the equipment and evaluation of suitable make/model for each of the items required for seamless integration with the civil structure of IACCS.

How the contract process was manipulated?

The internal investigation report of BEL gives an indication that the procedures to select vendors for the project was handled through a very simple method of picking the names from the documents submitted by the design consultant, which had prepared a detailed project report mentioning the name of foreign companies it was working with. The project report submitted to BEL was later forwarded to IAF which signed the contract and sent it back to BEL. Subsequently, BEL formed a technical committee to purchase IACCS associated equipment. Thereafter, the technical committee went for shopping at companies first mentioned by M/S RD Konsultants in the detailed project report.

Documents reveal the Finnish firm Temet OY was given the contract for regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System for IACCS sites for more than Rs 60 crore without floating global tender. Interestingly, purchase order said that technical committee headed by Umesh Chandra had recommended searching more vendors and two other firms M/S Parker and M/S Airef were explored but both were found not capable of manufacturing Carbon Dioxide removal system with required specifications. Why and how these two companies were selected by the technical committee to explore more option instead of going for an open or global tender remain in the domain of speculation. A BEL officer in the finance division noted in the file that price of the system given to Temet OY needs to be justified since it was on a single tender basis.

“As per company’s policy, the price needs to be justified by technical evaluation or by comparing similar product available in the market not considered for the bidding,” Sanjoy Kumar Pal, senior deputy general manager, finance wrote on 22 August 2018.

There is some interesting observation in the documents, which expose the alleged irregularities. RK Sharma, an officer from the material management division (Network Centric System) gave a contradictory statement in a bid to clarify the pricing based on a single tender. He said price quoted by Temet OY was well below the unit cost considered for the selling price, however, he further went on to say that there was no procurement history of similar items and prices of this system is not readily available in the market.

Subsequently, the technical committee recommended that enquiry for carbon dioxide removal system be sent to Temet OY, Finland only. The proposal was on a single tender basis and Temet OY, Finland was called for technical-commercial negotiations, which was held from 6 to 8 August 2018. Besides BEL and Temet OY officials, Vikram Parvathoju from design consultant M/S RD Konsultants was also present in the meeting.

While appointing the technical committee in May 2017, the CMD, BEL had clearly mentioned that representatives of design consultant, project management consultant and the third-party inspection and certification agency should be involved in the proceeding but neither project management consultants nor officials from third party inspection agency were present in technical and price negotiation meetings. After technical committee recommendation, the single tender proposal was approved.

Just a day after the committee meeting on 8 August 2018, which was attended by senior BEL officers including Joydeep Majumdar (General Manager, Network Centric System), BP Pahuja ( Assistant General Manager, Infrastructure, Network Centric System) and two representatives of Temet OY, the defence PSU started placing the purchase order for Temet OY, Finland. The total quantity of carbon dioxide removal system (details withheld) is mentioned on the 20 August 2018 note, which further said, “The total quantity was indicated by Infra group based on the design and requirements finalized by design consultant M/S RD Konsultants.”

“Technical committee recommended that enquiry for Carbon Dioxide Removal System be sent to M/S Temet OY only. The proposal is on a single tender basis,” the note said.

German company favoured despite submitting the technical proposal after closing time

Another foreign company under the cloud is Pro-Hub Hebetechnik GmbH based in Germany that was awarded the multi-crore contract of goods lifts for the IACCS project. The company was mentioned by M/S RD Konsultants in the detailed project report submitted during the UPA regime. M/S RD Konsultants had claimed that it provides design consultancy to the Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH. This issue has been raised in the internal investigation report of BEL, recommending further probe to ascertain conflict of interest.

Satyaprem from M/S RD Consultants was present in the technical meeting on 16 July 2018 between officials from BEL and Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH. No representatives from the project management consultant and third-party inspection and certification agency were present in the meeting. Documents reviewed by Firstpost shows technical committee had selected two companies for goods lift — Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH and M/S Maspero Elevatori.

Documents reveal that Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH technical response vide 11 emails were received on 26 June 2018, after the closing time of bid. However, it was not disqualified. This move triggered suspicion among the BEL officer’s ranks and Sanjoy Kr. Pal, Senior Deputy Manager, Finance division, BEL on 26 July 2018 objected the move. He questioned on the proposal file for awarding the contract to Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH asking as to why late tender is being entertained and why purchase clause is not being followed in this case.

“The proposal is put up to CMD under what Sub Delegation of Powers (SDOP) clause? As per clause 10.2.7 of the purchase procedure, no late tender should be entertained. Why purchase procedure clause was not followed? Pal questioned.

On 27 July, RK Sharma, deputy general manager, Material Management (Network Centric System), BEL clarified that since the happenings and the facts related to the receipt of bids after closing time are in variation of the actually prescribed process in purchase procedure 2016, approval is sought of CMD for the process followed by Strategic Business Unit (SBU) of BEL. He further said that Pro Hub Hebetechnik GmbH was not disqualified because a ‘conscious decision’ was taken by the SBU, keeping in view the project requirements.

Sanjoy Kumar Pal, BEL officer from finance division, however, was not satisfied with the clarification and he clearly said that proposal was in violation of purchase procedure.

“The proposal is in deviation of purchase procedure and accordingly it is put up to CMD,” Pal wrote.

Despite the proposal contested by his own officer in finance division, CMD MV Gowtama approved the proposal on 27 July 2018.

Technical capability? Produced just 75 valves but selected by BEL

Another deal that has come under the scanner is blast valves, gastight valves and wall sleeves for the IACCS sites. The contract has been awarded to German company Mueller Safe GmbH, which primarily deal in safe and very recently ventured into valve manufacturing and till May 2018 had only produced 75 pieces. On the other hand, a UK company, European EMC Products Ltd (EEP), which had produced and supplied more than 2,000 valves was simply disqualified on the basis of not meeting the criteria for average annual turnover for last three years, which was vigorously contested by BEL officer Nataraj Krishnappa, Director arguing that EEP is technically suitable and competent.

“M/S EEP, UK has been dropped based on the criteria that annual turnover of the company for the last 3 years does not meet the desired requirement. This vendor is technically suitable and competent. Why cannot they be considered for Request for Quotation (RFQ) purpose? The site visit report of the committee does not indicate any reason for the disqualification of the vendor,” Krishnappa wrote on 28 May 2018.

Joydeep Majumdar, general manager (Network Centric System) wrote that the technical committee felt EEP being a small organisation with low turnover will not be able to handle contract estimated to be worth Rs 200 crores. Subsequently, the EEP, UK was dropped and instead of going for global tender, Request for Proposal (RFP) on the restricted tender basis was sent to Mueller Safe GmbH and Temet OY, a world leader in valve business, which had supplied more than 60,000 valves till May 2018 globally.

The bid was invited on 15 June 2018 and while the response from Temet OY was submitted before the expiry of bid submission time, Mueller Safe GmbH bid was received after closing time. Subsequently, Mueller Safe GmbH, which had no expertise in manufacturing valves was declared L1 and it was called for techno-commercial negotiations, which were held from 9 to 14 July 2018. Questions were raised within BEL as to why Mueller Safe, an inexperienced company in making valves, was given contract and why not re-tendering process inviting more companies was initiated by the BEL.

Documents reviewed by Firstpost reveals that an officer in the finance division had warned just before the finalisation of the contract to Mueller that “selection should be as per the technical manufacturing capability”. But, that was ignored. Even after Mueller Safe GmbH was awarded the contract, Naresh Kumar, deputy general manager of the finance division, BEL said that the bid of M/S Mueller Safe GmbH is received after the closing time and approval for bid acceptance received after closing time requires CMD approval. Another officer V Muralidharan, General Manager (Finance) also flagged the concerns on 26 July 2018 that since the proposal was accepted after the closing time of bid, CMD post facto approval of deviation would be required. The proposal was approved by the CMD on 27 July 2018.

Documents reviewed by the Firstpost also revealed Mueller Safe GmbH was not mentioned in the RD Konsultants documents and thus it appears that no representatives from the design consultants attended the meetings. No one from the project management consultant and third-party inspection and certification agency was present either. Also, the meetings held between 11-12 July 2018 at BEL office with the Mueller Safe GmbH functionaries had not representatives from the above-mentioned group.

It is further learnt that original equipment manufacturer for valve refused on Transfer of Technology (ToT) arguing that its business will be adversely affected in the case full know-how is given to BEL as defence PSU will become the competitor in the market. The technical committee agreed upon partial ToT and gave its go-ahead for the contract.

The BEL internal inquiry report has recommended further probe into the installation of the sub-systems of IACCS observing that site design might be designed keeping a particular company in mind.

“It is also claimed that ‘M/S RD Konsultants’ has designed the underground RCC structure taking into consideration a particular make of doors, hatches, blast valves, lifts, air conditioning, building management systems etc. All the reinforcement, cut-outs etc in the RCC structure were designed for interfacing with the particular brand (example for the doors the steel reinforcements in the opening were designed as per the hinge locations in the particular band of blast doors). Since the RCC structures have been made at many sides even before the finalization of the sub-systems to be installed hence it needs to be studied what was the repercussion in the change in scope of RCC structure already built and what was the cost repercussion BEL had to bear,” the internal inquiry report said.

Similarly, the order for radio and its accessories worth more than Rs 9 crore, was also given to a Germany based company (details withheld) on a single source basis without inviting tender. It appears this German firm selected without tendering process was not the original manufacturer. A key document reviewed by Firstpost said, “The firm indicated that most of the hardware being delivered by them is third-party hardware.”

IACCS prototype makers joined fugitive arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari firm

It is learnt that two senior officers of defence PSU, BEL, who were instrumental in designing prototype for Indian Air Force’s confidential IACCS project in 2007 joined fugitive arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s firm OIS Advanced Technology Private Limited after retirement in 2011. Interestingly, BEL was preparing to formally launch the IACCS project by inviting preliminary project report for 10 automated air operation centre for Indian Air Force around the same time. The two officers, who joined arms dealer’s company at senior positions, are now under the scanner of Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing alleged kickbacks linked to Bhandari in Swiss basic trainer aircraft Pilatus during UPA regime in 2012. Incidentally, BEL is the offset partner of Pilatus.

PMO

Bharat Electronics in the dock for ‘compromising’ confidential IAF project, favouring one vendor, BEL’s internal inquiry report reveals

Leave a comment

Yatish Yadav Apr 02, 2019 – Firstpost

New Delhi: Defence public sector undertaking Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) is under the scanner for allegedly compromising national security by awarding a highly sensitive air command and control contract of the Indian Air Force to an ill-equipped and newly formed private design firm in 2011. The project was worth Rs 7,900 crore.

An internal inquiry report of BEL has exposed massive irregularities in the way the contracts were awarded and how the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) was implemented at 10 locations across the country.

IACCS is an automated command and control system for air defence operations that integrates all ground-based and airborne sensors. BEL is the executing agency for the highly-sensitive project.

BEL’s internal investigation report — exclusively reviewed by Firstpost — also highlighted a conflict of interest of a BEL officer, who was instrumental in the hiring of a private vendor to put together the Preliminary Project Report (PPR) of the coded system, in joining the same private company after retirement. The report also suggested that the investigative team looking into the irregularities was not provided with crucial project documents allegedly to bury the scam.

The defence PSU’s internal inquiry report was prepared in October 2018. It flagged discrepancies at various stages of the execution of the project. To begin with, the report questioned the move to hire M/s RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR in 2011 and then bringing the same company on board as the design consultant in 2013, violating the norms in place during UPA regime. The inquiry report also red-flagged other serious issues, including monumental lapses in ordering the execution of the contracts at all 10 sites across the country and deviations in the implementation at certain project sites where BEL had to bear additional expenditure.

After Firstpost mailed a detailed questionnaire to MV Gowtama, chairman and managing director (CMD) of BEL, Ranjit Karamchandani from the CMD’s office denied the findings of the firm’s own inquiry report.”BEL follows a transparent process in selection of its vendors/partners,” he said. “Prima facie, BEL does not see any irregularity, as alleged.”

Questionnaires sent to RD Konsultants seeking its comment on findings of the inquiry report went unanswered.

Deep-rooted nexus exposed

According to the inquiry report, BEL first hired RD Konsultants in September 2011 to prepare the PPR for IACCS. The report pointed out that the firm was barely one and a half years old when it was hired, having come into existence on 1 April, 2010, on 50-50 partnership between Ruby Kant and Suresh Kumar Anand. The BEL top brass approved the proposal to award the contract to the company on 6 September, 2011, with a note that made it amply clear that “as per corporate vigilance guidelines, if ‘M/s RD Konsultants’ is hired as a consultant for preparing the PPR, then it cannot be considered for similar requirements in the future”. The note added that for the IACCS project, BEL would have to look for new consultants for “future requirements of consultancy”.

The inquiry report also flagged the way RD Konsultants was hired to prepare the PPR. “…No norms of Request for Proposal or tendering were followed, but it was selected just based on a recommendation by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) with no written correspondence from the DRDO,” it said.

But BEL officers went a step ahead to allegedly favor RD Konsultants in the second stage of the project while hiring a consultant to prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR), the inquiry report suggested. As per the rules in place in October 2012, BEL formed a committee to select consultants to prepare the DPR along with a detailed design for 10 sites of IACCS nodes. That RD Konsultants should not have been allowed was clearly mentioned in the file initiated by BEL’s Network Centric System (NCS-Strategic Business Unit) on 28 July, 2011, and cleared by the top brass on 6 September, 2011. But that did not happen.

RK Handa, who was the general manager of the NCS at the time, was part of the committee that selected the vendors and hired RD Konsultants in 2011, the report noted.

“In fact the file raised in October 2012 should have been in continuation to the file initiated on 28 July, 2011. Why it was not done needs a detailed investigation with respect to malafide intentions to violate the Central Vigilance Commission’s guidelines for hiring of consultants,” it added. “Even in the selection of M/s RD Konsultants for the second time, there were a lot of deviations from the norms laid down.”

The inquiry report further highlighted that had a financial criterion been put in place, RD Konsultants would not have qualified for the job.

The defence PSU signed the second contract with the firm in September 2013 to prepare the DPR of all 10 IACCS sites. The inquiry report noted that RD Konsultants was paid Rs 13.5 lakh for consultancy charges to prepare the PPR but Rs 15.94 crore for the DPR, alleging that someone was pulling the strings to favour the company, and that the financial criterion was changed twice during the course of selection of vendors.

“M/s RD Konsultants’ had been established in April 2010, but to show a turnover in the last three years as required, they showed a turnover in 2009-10, also verified by a chartered accountant. This clearly shows that false information was provided. Also, a company that came into existence on April 2010 showed that its employees had an experience of five years in 2013. This again is false information. It is interesting to note that another company, M/s Systems Dynamics, was rejected by the committee on the criterion that it had shown a turnover for only two years (2010-11 and 2011-12),” the inquiry report said.

The chartered accountant certificate enclosed with the inquiry report does not mention a telephone number. The letterhead of the CA firm merely shows an address of Shakarpur in New Delhi.

Raising concerns over the track record of RD Konsultants, the inquiry report recommended further investigation to find out whether it has actually completed the big ticket projects as it claimed to BEL. Raising suspicion, the report said RD Konsultants had mentioned that by March 2013, they had completed 30 projects worth Rs 1,266 crore, with consultancy charges of Rs 36 crore, whereas they had 45 works worth Rs 1,743 crore underway, with consultancy charges of Rs 52.29 crore.

“How was a company, which came into existence in April 2010, awarded 75 projects within three years (when as per DRDO rules, any company without requisite experience and turnover cannot be awarded contracts). What was the timeline in which these projects were completed? These need detailed investigations to find the ground reality. As per the BEL Works Contract Manual, it is mandatory that all vendors who qualify submit proof of the works they claimed to have done. RD Konsultants took the plea that they could not share details of the works since they were for the DRDO and confidential in nature, though another vendor, ‘M/s Systems Dynamics’, submitted documents related to the DRDO as well as the integrated headquarters of the army to confirm the work they did. There is no secrecy in the order copy or listing of the works carried out for the DRDO. Non-submission of the details (by RD Konsultants) itself casts doubts on the validity of the claims made,” the inquiry report said in its scathing observation.

BEL’s inquiry report further alleged that RD Konsultants had claimed to have provided design consultancy to a few well-known brands that specialise in equipment used for structures similar to IACCS, such as Temet Oy Finland and Pro-Hub Germany. It added that RD Konsultants was also into civil construction “with direct/indirect control on a lot of companies like SR Ashok & Associates, CS Construction etc.”

“Being the designer agency, which got the order for all 10 sites, they have a huge influence on the selection of vendors for various sub-systems of the project. A detailed investigation is needed to find out where orders have been placed with companies where RD Konsultants has direct/indirect influence. (There was a case wherein SR Ashok & Associates had applied for civil execution of underground structures and CS Construction was hired by L&T for execution of work at sites). Also, Temet Oy Finland and Pro-Hub Germany have been given orders for sub-systems to be installed inside the IACCS structures,” the report observed.

Moreover, the file to hire consultants for IACCS structures was initiated with the mandate that one agency will not get the order for all 10 sites. Even the newspaper advertisement and qualification document clearly mentioned that a consultancy firm could be given a contract for five sites. However, the inquiry report alleged that the entire process was manipulated. Further alleging serious charges of conflict of interest, the report said BEL officer PK Bhola, who was instrumental in having RD Konsultants cleared to prepare the PPR for the IACCS project in 2011 joined the same company after retiring from the defence PSU. The report said he might have passed on crucial information to benefit the company.

“How come the order for all sites was finally awarded to only one vendor, which violated the tender document? The quote given by RD Konsultants was nearly the same as that estimated by BEL, which leads to doubts whether the methodology of estimates was known to RD Konsultants. Mr PK Bhola (DGM of NCS-Marketing), who was the main resource in BEL for raising all the files and interfacing with the customer for the project, joined RD Konsultants after his retirement from BEL, and hence, all information was being transmitted to RD Konsultants through Mr Bhola,” the report alleged.

Firstpost reviewed two BEL notes regarding the inquiry report’s observations on Bhola. The first note from July 2011 signed by Bhola, when he was the deputy general manager of marketing at the NCS, is on hiring RD Konsultants to prepare the PPR for the IACCS project. The second note, dated 8 August, 2016, which is basically minutes of a pre-bid meeting for two tenders related to the IACCS project. In this, Bhola is mentioned as a representative of RD Konsultants.

Irregularities in ground execution

RD Konsultants is the design consultancy firm for all 10 IACCS sites, but the contract to execute the project was given to different companies. The details quoted by the inquiry report from the files related to the project suggests that after clearance, certain changes were made in the quantities, which escalated the cost of the project by Rs 106 crore to the government exchequer. The report said such changes were concurred to by the BEL director of finance vide note no 37, where it is mentioned that “this is a deviation from the works’ contract manual”.

The report further observed that L&T was awarded the execution work at three sites, but its cost per site was more than that of the other sites being constructed by other companies. The inquiry also found that L&T had subcontracted work at two IACCS sites to a private vendor, which is allegedly linked to RD Konsultants.

“L&T has further subcontracted part of the work at two sites to ‘M/s CS Constructions’, which is again a company related to RD Konsultants. The director of the company, Mr Rahul Bhuchar, has been coming to BEL and meeting the assistant general manager (infrastructure) as a representative of RD Konsultants. The sub-contracting of work by L&T to a party related to RD Konsultants is in violation to the terms of the contract. A civil engineering expert needs to go into the details of the costing for each site and the various considerations that led to the difference in the cost of various sites. As per the file on the selection of a consultant, DRDO representatives had brought out that all sites will be same, with only cosmetic differences in design. If that was so, then how come the difference in the costing between the lowest and the highest is more than two times?” the report said, flagging the loopholes in financial deviations, seeking further investigation into the entire matter.

It also said that under “para 3.2.3 of the design and engineering contract, RD Konsultants and his affiliates as well as sub-consultants have been debarred from providing any goods, works or services”. “RD Konsultants failed to make a voluntary and complete disclosure in this regard, thus violating the contract,” it concluded.

BEL shelled out more due to deviations in project

BEL’s internal investigation report said that at three IACCS sites, deviations in execution on the ground forced BEL to shell out more money. The report observed that at all three locations, the conditions of the sites during excavation were found to be in mismatch with those taken by RD Konsultants while designing and preparation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for excavation.

The report also revealed that a few IACCS sites under construction had collapsed. An inspection team visited one of the sites on 22 and 23 March 2018 to investigate the mishap. Although CCTV cameras were installed, the BEL fact-finding team was told by its own manager deployed at the site that the footage was not available. Interestingly, an engineer from MECON Limited, the government-owned company that blew the whistle on irregularities at a project site, was transferred. MECON Limited functions under the Ministry of Steel and is working as a project management consultant at five IACCS sites.

Firstpost is withholding the name of the whistleblower and the location of the IACCS project in the interest of national security. The inquiry report mentioned these in detail.

“There was a complaint received from ‘AAAAA’ (site engineer) posted by M/s MECON at the ‘BBBBB’ site alleging that though he had brought out that quality procedures were not being followed at the site, senior executives at BEL, in collusion with the vendor, have not responded to his calls/reports. He alleged that pressure was put on him to ignore the facts since it was more important to meet the timelines. He also alleged that he was transferred along with the local BEL site engineer because they had highlighted that procedures were bypassed. The complaints need to be pursued to find out the facts,” the inquiry report asserted.

Firstpost reviewed the engineer’s complaint dated 28 March, 2018, which was sent to two senior BEL officials. In the letter, he claimed higher officials of BEL impose a lot of unethical verbal instructions on juniors, which is damaging for a PSU of national importance.

“I was posted as the site in-charge of MECON Limited and tried my best to act as a whistleblower, being a part of a project of national importance. I had issued innumerable emails and letters regarding quality issues of the project. But the engineer in charge and other higher officials from BEL desisted me verbally to not follow quality procedures strictly on the pretext of progress of the project. They actually always blindly favored the contractor anywhere and everywhere,” the MECON Limited engineer wrote in his complaint.

“However, when we did not allow any relaxation in this regard and made deduction in bills wherever quality procedures were not followed, higher officials of BEL were not satisfied with the site in-charges (both officials of BEL and MECON Limited) for not favoring the contractor and for following the rule book strictly. For this reason, the BEL general manager and assistant general manager transferred their own site in-charge and pressurised MECON Limited to transfer its senior manager (name withheld) in September 2017 on the pretext that they did not perform satisfactorily, whereas actually it was just the opposite. This was to instill a sense of fear so that other engineers fall in line.”

The inquiry report said walls at the site of another project collapsed twice due to the soil conditions being different from what were assessed by the design consultant when the SOP for excavation was formulated. BEL had to get the soil analysed independently by the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru at its own expense.

“The total cost of the execution increased because of the side wall collapse and also the change in the foundation, which, once again, resulted in extra cash flow of crores of rupees. All this needs detailed investigation by some civil engineering expert,” report further added.

The report also highlighted glaring irregularities in the hiring of civil engineer Manish Goyal to look after the IACCS projects’ infrastructure as a manager. It claimed Goyal was hired despite falling short of the required 10 to 12 years’ experience and without having any exposure to highly specialised work like the IACCS project. The report expressed shock over this, saying it was quite surprising how and why the human resources division of BEL did not fully check or verify the documents Goyal’s submitted while establishing his experience as per BEL’s requirements and rules. The report said Goyal earlier worked with L&T. As the manager of NCS-infrastructure, Goyal was later given charge of the three IACCS sites that the infrastructure giant is working on and authorises L&T bills.

It is pertinent to mention that before the internal inquiry report was submitted in October 2018, a three-member BEL team had submitted an investigation-cum-site inspection report in May 2018 regarding certain allegations related to the execution of the IACCS projects. The panel, which included BEL officers AK Raheja, Sayanarayana and MM Roy, had submitted the report to BEL’s vigilance department, concluding that there were serious irregularities in the implementation of the ambitious national security project. Also, BEL’s panel report clearly said that the RD Konsultants’ capabilities were not checked before it was awarded the contract in 2011 and 2013.

“There are evidences of work being subcontracted to CS Constructions Private Limited by L&T, the execution contractor, both on the material and labour front. The registered addresses of CS Constructions Private Limited and RD Konsultants are one and the same. The company profile of YS Anand Consultants Private Limited shows Suresh Kumar Anand (partner of RD Konsultants) and Sarita Anand (director of CS Constructions Private Limited) as its directors. This evidences the fact of RD Konsultants’ involvement with the affiliates related to persons otherwise interested in project,” the panel’s report noted.

“The soil test report as submitted by the design consultant does not match the strata found in excavation,” it added. “Evidence exists of Manish Goyal (manager, NCS-infra), a key person in the infrastructure project, being a former L&T person. The documents submitted by Manish Goyal lack transparency. A part of the work experience of Manish Goyal conflicts with the tenure of pursuing M Tech, and to that extent, his work experience falls short of the minimum eligibility criteria. After the soil collapse at YYYY site (location withheld), no independent inquiry was conducted by the management for any corrective measure. The design of the soil extraction was changed without analysing the reasons for the soil collapse. Although a CAR (Comprehensive All Risk) policy exists in the joint name of BEL and L&T, no insurance claim was lodged. Pinpoint focus by BEL IACCS-Infra is somewhere lacking, and work is being left at the mercy of site engineers and the agencies hired.”

The panel’s report further suggested that BEL officials had tried to cover up the collapse. It indicated that the non-availability of CCTV camera footage at the important sites was yet another attempt to allegedly conceal the wrongdoing.

 

 

Drdo

One killed in fire at Pune DRDO lab

2 Comments

HEMRL is one of the oldest laboratories of the DRDO.

By: Express News Service | Pune | Published: June 20, 2018

Police have identified the deceased worker as Laxmikant Ramesh Sonawane (26), a resident of Ramnagar in Warje, and the injured as Yogesh Kirtikar. (Representational)

One contract worker died and another was seriously injured in a fire involving explosive material at the High Energy Material Research Laboratory (HEMRL) of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), at Pashan in Pune on Tuesday afternoon.

Police have identified the deceased worker as Laxmikant Ramesh Sonawane (26), a resident of Ramnagar in Warje, and the injured as Yogesh Kirtikar.

“The deceased was a contract worker. All the safety measures were in place at the time of the accident. A high-level DRDO committee will investigate the causes of the accident and come up with a report,” said HEMRL Director KPS Murthy.

Senior Inspector Arun Waykar of Hinjewadi police station said, “The workers were taking samples of some explosives when suddenly, some of the substances they were handling exploded.”

HEMRL is one of the oldest laboratories of the DRDO.

Drdo

DRDO whistle-blowers seek Sitharaman’s intervention

Leave a comment

Abhinandan Mishra
May 26, 2018 – Sunday Guardian Live

Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

Arun Jaitley had ordered action against two senior scientists in a case in DRDO.

Whistle-blowers and scientists working with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) have written to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, seeking her intervention in an alleged corruption case within the DRDO. Sitharaman’s predecessor Arun Jaitley had ordered disciplinary action against two senior scientists in this case, but no action has been taken yet. This newspaper is in possession of a correspondence that was shared by the whistle-blower with the Defence Minister. As per this correspondence, R.K. Jain (Director, Joint Cipher Bureau of the DRDO) and A.K. Singh (Director, Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences) were allegedly found to have been involved in “wasting” government money by conducting interviews for the promotion of scientists in DRDO, despite statutory rules barring such interviews. The DRDO had later stated that even though Rs 1 crore had been spent on calling 255 scientists for the interview, the results of the interview were not used to decide the promotions.

At the time of the interviews in 2011, R.K. Jain was the director of DRDO’s Recruitment and Assessment Centre (which takes care of recruitment and promotions), while A.K. Singh was the director of Directorate of Human Resource Development.

As per DRDO’s own admission, the amount spent on conducting similar interviews in subsequent years (2012 and 2013) was far less than what had been spent in 2011, though a greater number of scientists were interviewed—333 in 2012 and 376 in 2013. When contacted, Manish Bhardwaj, the spokesperson of DRDO, sought some time to respond and told this newspaper on 17 May: “The matter is being examined by a committee on the direction of Hon’ble Raksha Mantri. The committee shall submit the report in 3-4 days. After submission, DRDO would be in a position to provide the information sought by you.” However, no further information regarding the submission of the said report was shared by the spokesperson with this newspaper.

Official sources within the DRDO stated that no such committee was ever constituted in the matter.

The entire incident had come to light when a whistle-blower from DRDO first wrote to the Defence Minister and the Chief Vigilance Officer in July 2014, detailing how public money was wasted and that the whole process was used by the individuals concerned to indulge in alleged corruption.

“Instead of taking action against the two officials for their deliberate misconduct, DRDO rewarded them by awarding R.K. Jain with ‘Best techno managerial services/popular science communication award for his performance in 2011. A.K. Singh was promoted from the grade of Scientist F to the grade of Scientist G in 2011,” reads the latest communication to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. In June 2017, the then Defence Minister Arun Jaitley had ordered disciplinary action against Jain and Singh for causing a loss of Rs 1 crore to Government of India. “DRDO is known for using delaying tactics to shield officers. It deliberately sits on disciplinary orders of defence ministers to make sure that the officials in question retire without facing any punishment. They did this when Jaitley was the Defence Minister and are doing the same under Nirmala Sitharaman,” one of the whistle-blowers said.

Drdo

Def Minister’s inquiry in DRDO’s TOT could open can of worms

4 Comments

Prateek Goyal- Friday, May 4, 2018 – Sakal Times

“Many old TOTs by DRDO given to industries will be under the scanner.”

The inquiry was ordered after a news report about the repetitions of TOT by DRDO at the Defence Expo held at Chennai in April.

Similiarly, in year 2013, one of the TOTs in question of an explosive device kit prepared by High Enegy Material Laboratory (HEMRL) Pune received a lot of media attention after the signing of MoU with a US-based company.

Sakal Times has found out that a propaganda of TOT was promoted in order to boost the image of DRDO after the corruption and nepostism in it was exposed by the audit report of Comptroller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) in 2012.In order to Boost the image of DRDO Avinash Chander,the then director of DRDO in year 2013 served the old wine in new bottle and created a propoganda for reverse technology transfer to USA by forged TOT of explosive device kit prepared at HEMRL, Pune.

According to documents with Sakal Times, the patent for EDK was falsified and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed with one South Carolina-based company – which was actually a car accessories’ company with only two employees.

Murky background
HEMRL developed the EDK technology and applied to patent it in March 1996. In February 2010, the EDK was patented in the name of its inventors – Rabindra Kumar Sinha, Jaman Singh Gharia, Usha Devi Ramchandran Nair and Hira Lal Yadav.

Despite this, HEMRL falsely credited the innovation on the name of another scientist who was not the inventor – Reny M Roy – and was sent to America. The letter from HEMRL stated that she is the team leader and her presence in USA for the demonstration is necessary.

Roy claims this is wrong information. “The team had not completed their work, it was us who made it operational. Nothing is on anybody’s name, please don’t do such things as DRDO is doing good work,” she said.

Sinha, one of the inventors of EDK, said, “We completed the project and we don’t know why our name has not come and it doesn’t affect us.”

The DRDO director in 2013, when the MOU was signed, Avinash Chander, is currently based in Hyderabad and defended his actions saying, “I am not responsible for this, I was not the head of HEMRL lab. You should ask the concerned director.”

Propaganda and repeated MOU of TOT

  • 2011: HEMRL signed the first MOU with Crowe and Company, a Summerville,South Carolina-based car accessory and consulting services company with annual revenue of USD 1 lakh and has two employees. The MOU was signed between the then HEMRL director Shubhanand Rao and Fay Crow, who was the president of Crowe and company. It is significant to note that before signing the MOU with Crowe and company, DRDO signed a licensing agreement for EDK with a NOIDA based company by the name of Vantage Integrated Security Solutions-which used to deal in the assembling of CCTV Cameras
  • 2012: Controller General of Defence Accounts audit reveals large scale corruption in DRDO projects and VK Saraswat, the then Director General was relieved from his services. The new Director Avinash Chander again signed an MOU with Crowe and Company in Washington DC.
  • 2013:The new Director Avinash Chander again signed an MOU with Crowe and Company in Washington DC. A big function was organized by the DRDO at US Chamber of Commerce building. A dinner party was also hosted by the then Indian Ambassador to Amercia Nirupama Roy for DRDO official and family members of Fay Crowe. A delegation of a dozen scientist including Chander, Roy and Satish Naik, a Technical officer took part in the event.
  • 2015: Chander was sacked by the then Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar. DRDO team comprised Chander, Reny Roy and Satish Naik, technical officer in addition to nine officials

DRDO’s explanation

  • Though DRDO claims that no explanation was demanded from them, Directorate of Public Interface (DPI) of DRDO has sent an explanatory letter to Defence Minister dated April 23.
  • The letter stated that TOT’s were not repeated during the Defence Expo 2018, and that earlier the technology was demonstrated to clients and later a proposal for TOT was sent to them.
  • DRDO spokesperson Manish Bhardwaj told Sakal Times, “No such inquiry has been ordered by Honourable Raksha Mantri on this matter. The news report refereed by you is factually incorrect. A rebuttal was already sent to the concerned media by the Directorate of Public Relations (DPR), Ministry of Defence.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

www.cooruptionindrdo.com inputs on above article

DRDO News letter of May 2011 – EDK ToT news 

DRDO News letter of September 2013 –   EDK ToT in US with same company news 

Avinash Chander launching EDK ToT with Fay Crowe, Crowe & Company, US 

Dinner party was also hosted by the then Indian Ambassador to Amercia Nirupama Roy for DRDO official and family members of Fay Crowe.