Tag Archives: selecting

How a CAG report exposed DRDO’s mishandling of AEW&CS programme

The CAG report showed irregularities in the selection of aircraft for the programme

By Pradip R Sagar August 29, 2018

Indian Air Force’s indigenous AEW&CS in action during ‘Exercise Iron Fist’ in Pokhran | PTI

THE WEEK

As the indigenous Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEW&CS)—aircraft fitted with a radar system—flew over the Rajpath during the 2017 Republic Day parade, India joined an elite group of five countries that had this capability. But, before it could be formally inducted into the Air Force fleet, the ‘Eye in the Sky’ has flown into turbulence.

A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which was recently tabled in Parliament, has made startling observations about the programme, on which the Defence Research and Development Organisation has spent more than Rs 2,500 crore.

The CAG report showed irregularities in the selection of aircraft for the programme. The auditor slammed the DRDO for the cost overrun—the initial cost was Rs 1,800 crore—and its claims about indigenousness. Moreover, preferred vendors were selected to benefit certain companies, said the report. Though the Air Force had accepted the AEW&CS last year, it is yet to get the final operational clearance.
The AEW&CS is a moving surveillance platform, making it difficult for the enemy to locate the exact position of the aircraft. With its long range and detection capabilities, it gives a 360 degree view of the sky and can track many aircraft simultaneously.

China currently has 20 such airborne warning systems, while Pakistan has eight. The Indian Air Force has only three—Israeli Phalcon radar systems mounted on Russian IL-76 aircraft. India had bought the radar systems from Israel in 2004. According to experts, India currently does not have the capability to cover its entire airspace during a war.

A programme to develop an indigenous early warning system was taken up in 1994, but was shut down after a fatal crash. Subsequently, the defence ministry in 1999 approved the import of three airborne warning systems (the ones from Israel) and decided to meet further requirement through indigenous development.

In October 2004, the cabinet committee on security approved indigenous development of AEW&CS at a cost of Rs 1,800 crore. The deadline was April 2011. Under the project, two AEW&CS were to be supplied to the Air Force. DRDO’s Bengaluru-based laboratory, Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), was the nodal agency for design and development.

Considering the operational importance of this project, the CAG carried out an audit to know whether the system had everything that was promised. K. Subramaniam, principal director of audit, Air Force, recently sent the classified report to Dr S. Christopher, the then secretary of the Department of Defence Research and Development—which found serious irregularities in the programme.

The report has come down heavily on the programme over its claim of indigenousness. Despite the project being called home made, it was only 48 per cent indigenous. The DRDO had claimed it to be 81 per cent. And, the cost of foreign consultancy, about Rs 106 crore, was categorised as indigenous.

The CAG’s observations draw strength from the ongoing CBI investigation into alleged kickbacks in the process of selecting the aircraft. The Embraer EMB-145 aircraft from Brazil was shortlisted for the project in 2007. However, Brazilian media reported that Indian officials were bribed to swing the deal in Embraer’s favour. In 2016, the CBI registered a case against NRI arms dealer Vipin Khanna and two private companies based abroad. The case was about the alleged payment of more than $5.70 million as kickbacks to seal the deal for the aircraft.

The CAG report also pointed out inadequacies in management, which stretched the development period to 13 years. “And, the operational requirements, instead of being based on the functional needs of the Air Force, were being adjusted according to the aircraft that was ‘pre-selected’. It took seven years to finalise the operational requirements,” said the report.


During the design and development stage, some operational parameters were compromised because of the Embraer’s limitations. Also, there was no competitive bidding while selecting the aircraft. The Embraer was shortlisted through a nomination. Notably, several aircraft, such as the IL-76, and models from Gulfstream, Bombardier and Boeing were available at the time.

“The justification given for the selection of EMB-145 was not tenable,” the CAG observed. “No objective assessment of the merits and demerits of available options was done. The selection of EMB-145 was arbitrary and based on preconceived preference.”

Initial operational requirements stipulated that the system should be able to operate from high-altitude locations like Leh to have a much deeper view into the Chinese army’s activities. As the EMB-145 was incapable of doing so, claims the report, the Air Force had to drop this requirement in February 2006.

The report also said that the Air Force officials working with the DRDO reiterated that Embraer was not the suitable aircraft.

The CAG also criticised the project for the way the pilots were trained. “From the scrutiny of the expenditure on training, the audit found that the training commenced in June 2007. At this point, the procurement contract for EMB-145 was yet to be awarded and negotiations were underway between the CABS and M/s Embraer. Therefore, training of pilots on an aircraft even before finalising its purchase is highly unjustified,” CAG pointed out. Six pilots were trained abroad at a cost of Rs 23 crore.

Of the 18 requirements specified by the Air Force, AEW&CS could not fully achieve ten important ones. Despite this, the Air Force accepted the first system in February 2017.

“Since EMB-145 was selected, the weight of the mission system had to be adjusted to the optimum payload capacity of EMB-145, which was 3,000kg. The radar along with its associated systems, which was to be mounted on the fuselage, had to be limited to 1,500 kilos due to structural limitations,” the CAG said.

The probable date of completion was revised four times and the final date of completion was extended by over six years, said the report. The Air Force kept changing its requirements. In the middle of the programme, the Air Force demanded air-to-air refuelling and a de-icing system. It led to a delay of nearly two years.

Christopher, who was the head of CABS, said the repeated modifications in the operational requirement by the Air Force played a major role in the delay of the project. “It is all recorded in official documents and no one can find fault with me for it,” he said. “However, I believe that operational requirements is a prerogative of the user and you, as a developer of the equipment, cannot challenge it.”

Regarding the aircraft, he said, “Embraer was a well-proven aircraft. The decision to buy Embraer was taken in consultation with the then IAF chief S. Krishnaswamy. Four countries were using this platform as AWACS—the generic term for such a system. Moreover, the IAF decided that it has to be a turbo jet, not propellant. Turbo engine gives them the desired speed and efficiency.”

When contacted, Krishnaswamy said the selection of aircraft was purely DRDO’s decision. “The IAF was using Embraer for its VVIP fleet and thought of commonality if it is selected for AEW&CS. Since AEW&CS was DRDO’s project and budget was allocated to them, the final decision for selecting aircraft was DRDO’s only,” he said, adding that any modification in the operational requirements was a collective decision of the Air Force and the DRDO.

Complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur – Purchasing of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High Temperature Furnace

To                                                          6th February 2014
Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, A- Block, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110023
 

SUBJECT : Purchasing of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High Temperature Furnace at Exorbitant Price

Sir,

  1. Sh.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Scientist ‘C’ raised a demand of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High Temperature Furnace vide Demand No. DMSRDE/13552009 dated 30 August 2012.
  2. SPC date 13th September 2012
  3. DRDO Hqrs approval 1st October 2012
  4.  Tender Date 1st October 2012 (see the efficiency)
  5.  Limited tender enquiries will be issued to vendors registered with R&D Labs/Estts, DGS&D, NSIC, other Government departments and to the firms of national repute who will be registered before their bid is considered as per Para 3.2.2.  Such tenders may also be invited from the Government designated agencies. While inviting limited tender enquiries, due care will be observed in selecting vendors, especially in the case of traders who are not the actual manufacturers/authorized agent, to ensure better after sale service. (Rule 7.6.1 PM 2006)
  6.  Seven firms were mentioned in demand to which tender enquiries were sent. Out of these Modern Scientific Centre, Kanpur, Dhankar Enterprises, Kanpur,  Manglam Traders, Kanpur, Scientific Aid and Omega Furnace Industries, Banglore were registered in July 2013 at DMSRDE.
  7.  In this case two firms Dev Industrial Enterprises, Mumbai and Inschem, Lucknow are non-registered firms.
  8. As per PM 2006 Rule 7.6.1 “Limited tender enquiries will be issued to vendors registered with R&D Labs/Estts, DGS&D, NSIC, other Government departments and to the firms of national repute who will be registered before their bid is considered as per Para 3.2.2.  Such tenders may also be invited from the Government designated agencies. While inviting limited tender enquiries, due care will be observed in selecting vendors, especially in the case of traders who are not the actual manufacturers/authorized agent, to ensure better after sale service”.
  9. Dhankar Enterprises is not registered for Scientific Equipment/Instruments at Commercial Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh then how tender inquiry was sent to Dhankar Enterprises. Copy of registration enclosed.
  10. TEC was done on 6th December 2012
  11. TPC was done on 16th Jan 2013
  12. Supply was made on 27 Sept 2013 while in demand the delivery period was 3 months from date of supply order but SO was placed on 26 Feb 2013 that is delivery was made after 7 months (27 Sept 2013 – 26 Feb 2013 = 7 Months)
  13. No VAT /Tax was claimed in SO as basic cost of item was 1681500.00 only.
  14. Actual cost of item is Rs. 560000 + VAT 5.5% (560000*5.5% = 30800) . Thus total cost is 590800. But SO was placed for  Rs. 1681500.00. Hence item was purchased at very high price and commission of Rs. 1681500 – 590800 = 1090700.00 was made by Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur. (Omega Furnace Industries, Banglore’s quotation for same specification furnace is enclosed for ready reference)
  15. Stores Received on 27th September 2013 vide RIN No 14LP0149
  16. M/s Manglam Traders come in front and a review TPC was done,  under Chairmanship of  Dr. Sarfaraz Alam, Sc’G’
  17. Para two of review TPC                                                                                                 “Now, the firm M/s  Omega Furnace Industries, Bangalore has intimated that billing and supply of stores will be done by their local dealer M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur, vide letter of even no dated September 24, 2013”
  18. Para three of review TPC                                                                                              “The finance rep told that the stores have been supplied by M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur. Hence, the payment may be made to M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur”      Para four of review TPC                                                                                                       
  19. “ In view of aforesaid TPC recommends the following
  20. Supply Order was placed to Omega Furnace Industries but by review TPC payment was made to Manglam Traders. This totally against Purchase Management 2006 rule of DRDO
  21. In view of above details, it is clear Violation of Purchase Management 2006 Rule 7.15(a) Constitution of TPC/NC,  it is requested that registered the complaint against Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and his blind followers who are mishandling the government funds for their own vested interest. A thorough investigation is needed to explore the relation between Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and M/s Manglam Traders, Kanpur. It may be reveal crores of crores rupees scam in DMSRDE and RCI, DRDO.
 
Prabhu Dandriyal                                                                                                                           
21-Sunderwal, Raipur, Dehradun -248008                                                                             
0135-2787750 – 91-9411114879
prabhudoon@gmail.com,  www.corruptionindrdo.com  
 Encloser :
1.    Copy of registration of  Dhankar Enterprises, Kanpur
2.   Brief facts of procurement of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High   Temperature .Furnace
3.    Omega Furnace Industries, Banglore’s quotation for same specification furnace
 
Copy of registration of  Dhankar Enterprises, Kanpur
Dhankar kanpur
 Brief facts of procurement of Laboratory Microprocessor Based Programmable High   Temperature .Furnacebrief facts omega case