Tag Archives: UK

Vigilance heat forced BEL to drastically cut tender size for software in IAF’s Rs 7,900-cr IACCS project, but contract went to tainted US firm

Yatish Yadav Jul 11, 2019 12:31:00 IST First Post
New Delhi: After Firstpost expose on glaring irregularities in the civil construction of Indian Air Force’s (IAF) highly sensitive Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) project, a former manager of a defence public sector undertaking and a whistleblower has surfaced alleging corruption in the procurement of software for automated command and control system for air defence operations.

Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), a defence public sector undertaking is implementing the Rs 7, 900 crore project, which was initiated during the UPA regime.

The former manager of BEL, Bhupesh Sharma in a letter to the Ministry of Defence and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on 29 June 2019 has said that top management of the defence public sector undertaking, quietly buried the findings of a 2016 internal inquiry, which indicted six BEL officers for alleged corruption. Sharma alleged that despite a reminder from the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the company to the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of BEL in April 2018, no punitive action was taken against the accused officers.

Representational image of an air defence system. Reuters

Sharma, then part of the procurement committee, had blown the whistle over alleged manipulation in the procurement of Data Distribution Service (DDS) software to favour an American company. Sharma alleging victimisation said accused officers indicted by vigilance were rewarded by BEL while he was harassed for exposing deep-rooted corruption.
“Even after CVC intervention and reminders by CVO to CMD (Chairman and Managing Director) no action was taken against the erring officers. I was harassed and troubled to the extent that I was forced to resign. Instead of black listing the vendor M/S RTI USA, the order was finally placed on the vendor. The vigilance officer who did the enquiry in this case has also been given punishment posting to a remote unit of BEL. The message given by the top management was clear that anyone who speaks against corruption would be brutally suppressed and those who play along with the persons at the top having vested interests would be rewarded,” Sharma, who claims to have been decorated with innovation award, excellence awards and Raksha Mantri award for IACCS project , wrote to the CVC.

The documents also reveal that efforts were made by BEL officers to conceal the alleged irregularities by removing the files and purchase order. Even the investigators were denied full access to e-mails of concerned purchase department.

A detailed questionnaire sent to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner Sharad Kumar, Ministry of Defence and BEL CMD MV Gowtama remained unanswered.

Unravelling of software scam

Firstpost has reviewed the documents submitted to the Ministry of Defence and the CVC, which clearly shows that the procurement committee had engineered unwarranted specification in the procurement of DDS software to allegedly disqualify one of the two vendors in the race for the contract.

The two companies, M/S RTI, USA and M/S Prismtech, UK represented by M/S Mistral Solutions and M/S RTTS respectively were invited by the BEL for the procurement of DDS software. The vigilance report said procurement team had pre-decided to give the contract to M/S RTI USA and the entire process of real time demonstration to assess feasibility also known as Proof of Concept (PoC) was merely an eyewash.

Although UK Company had quoted value of the project in the range of about Rs 5 to 10 crore, the quote submitted by American company M/S RTI was about Rs 130 crore. However, since, the BEL had decided to grant the project to M/S RTI, USA through its Indian representative M/S Mistral Solutions, BEL officers inserted a particular specification which caught the eye of vigilance team investigating the case.

“Technical expert in his report has stated that there is a lack of clarity in the PoC evaluation process/criteria which leads to ambiguity and conspiracy. Also technical expert has confirmed that there are irregularities and inconsistencies in framing of specifications and conducting PoC. Scope of PoC for the DDS document does not specify any particular method of demonstrating the PoC and it generally highlights the features to be shown in the PoC. Hence the vendor can select any particular method and demonstrate the features. PoC evaluation criteria and the PoC test document is not uniform for all the vendors,” the vigilance report to the CVC said.

System Requirements Specification document signed with the customer by BEL indicates that there are no special specification requirements for the use and configuration of DDS and also the security of the data transferred using DDS. PoC scope does not highlight that the above security implementations should match and confirm to DDS OMG standards. Even though no vendor has a complete implementation of DDS X types still M/S RTI was shown complied during technical bidding regarding para 6.2 of technical specification,” the report further said.

The vigilance report made it clear that specifications mentioned above as ‘para 6.2 technical specs’ were allegedly modified by the procurement committee of BEL to suit American firm. Sharma claims he had opposed such manipulation and turned whistleblower by exposing the wrongdoings in his emails to vigilance and top officials of the BEL.

“I became the whistleblower when ordering of software for the IACCS project was forcibly being ordered on the resultant single tender basis (by manipulating and making the other vendor technically non-complied). I tried my best to stop the ordering by talking to all my seniors in the unit and finally when I was not heard, I wrote to CVO and all the directors of the company including CMD about the corrupt practices being followed in the unit,” Sharma wrote to the CVC.

It is also evident from the vigilance report that the UK firm was deliberately denied security clearance for demonstration though its India representative M/S RTTS was allowed and subsequently disqualified.

“The team (BEL) misinformed M/S Prismtech regarding non-availability of security clearance on 11 May 2016, though a security clearance was taken by Senior Manager DGM (Development & Engineering division of Network Centric System 1) for the period of 9 May-11 May 2016. The contradicting statements of senior executives and D&E engineers in relation to security clearance for M/S Prismtech representative’s leads to suspect that D&E does not want to give the opportunity to M/S Prismtech to demonstrate the features,” the vigilance report said.

Questions have also been raised by the vigilance team over the formation of a technical committee and PoC committee for the procurement. The report observed although the procurement involves a lot of technical parameters related to software and high value of approximately Rs 130 crore, the procurement committee was made with two mechanical engineers, one finance and two electronic engineers. The report slammed BEL further asserting that there were no software professionals in the technical specification team and approval of a procurement team with non-technical members reveals a lax approach of the management as they played a dubious role.

“It appears that D&E engineers (Development & Engineering division) have played a pivotal role in finalizing specifications whereas others merely acted as spectators,” the vigilance report said.

The report has also raised doubt on the assessment process of technical specifications saying that evaluation of features is not the same for both M/S Prismtech and M/S RTI.

It said the PoC which were done by engineers from M/S Mistral Solutions, representative of RTI, USA, did not have relevant past experience to carry out PoC of DDS software and they could not answer anything technically or relevantly. The vigilance team during an interrogation of engineers from Development & Engineering division found that some engineers who were nominated as PoC members were not aware that they were part of an evaluation team.

Some were absent during the assessment, some engineers had relegated the job to their junior executives and no detailed review was done during the conduct of PoC and no senior executives have monitored the progress of PoC though it was such an important activity for the project. The test report of the American firm was also prepared in advance.

“From the test data report of M/S Mistral (representative of M/S RTI USA, it emerges that test data report was pre-prepared by suppliers and merely signed by BEL engineers. During examination of D&E engineers, it is observed that D&E-NCS has started working on evaluation versions of M/S RTI, USA since October 2015 through license agreements. During evaluation many issues came time to time and were resolved. This was probably the reason that PoC with M/S RTI, USA was merely a formality. The PoC conducted by M/S Mistral Solutions has been cleared despite number of irregularities/ inconsistencies,” the vigilance report said exposing the manipulation to favour a particular vendor.

The documents reveal that before the investigators could examine the documents related to alleged corruption, the files were removed by the concerned officers to erase the audit trail.

The vigilance report said, “Documents with respect to change of specifications which is intimated to M/S RTTS (India representative of M/S Prismtech, UK) was not found in the file, not informed to the investigator at any point and the same was concealed by purchase department. There was no documentary proof regarding the intimation of changed specifications to four cases to all the suppliers participated in the bidding. Currently, the purchase requisitions are also deleted in SAP (System Applications and Products) without assigning reasons and Unit Management has not given any reasons till now for the same.”

The vigilance report which was forwarded to the CVC on 24 November 2016, clearly opined that there are procedural violations in the subject case and there appear to be malafide intentions right from the beginning of coming out of consolidated requirements, generating the specifications for this software instead of PP drawings, arriving of PoC conditions, the manner in which PoC was conducted and M/S RTI, USA bid was accepted and M/S Prismtech bid was eliminated.

The vigilance recommended blacklisting of M/S RTI, USA, initiation of disciplinary action against officers involved and including the name of two senior officers in doubtful integrity list.

In defence procurements, the private companies are known to be hiring retired officials to exercise the influence. In this case too, vigilance raised apprehension about alleged manipulation as a former CMD of BEL was on board of Mistral Solutions. The vigilance had recommended a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), however, the matter was never referred to the premier investigative agency.

“It is learnt that M/S RTI’s malafide intention/ involvement with BEL D&E team cannot be underestimated as ex-CMD (BEL) Mr. Ashwini Kumar Datta is working in M/S Mistral Solutions which requires further investigation by the CBI,” the vigilance report said.

In its recommendation, the vigilance also said the finalisation of specifications and scope of PoC should be done by a competent technical committee and any vested interest/doubtful integrity executives should not be part of the panel.

Cover-up by BEL?

The alleged cover-up in the entire irregularities started after the project came under the scanner. The Rs 130 crore tender was scrapped and suddenly BEL realised that they have in house capability to provide that suspected security specifications that was inserted to allegedly favour a particular company.

However, Sharma said, the BEL management did not take any disciplinary action against accused officers, did not include two senior officers in doubtful integrity list and did not blacklist the American firm. In fact, Sharma alleged, a bogus re-tendering process was initiated on the single-vendor basis and this time the DDS software contract without suspected specification was awarded to same firm Mistral Solutions, India representative of RTI, USA at less than Rs 10 crore. The BEL GM, NCS Joydeep Majumdar in a letter to the CVO confirmed the contract to Mistral Solutions while claiming they have saved more than Rs 110 crore.

“Earlier security features were included in the RFQ for DDS software. M/S Mistral Solutions qualified technically. Mistral quoted Rs. 120 Crores, however, the technical committee after study found out that the security solution was available with CRL Bangalore (Central Research Laboratory) and no need to buy from Mistral. A proof of concept was carried out and it was found working with the proposed DDS. Thus, the committee decided to go for the same DDS from Mistral which was purchased earlier for CMS in NCS, SBU which was without security features and hence was valued very low. Also, since the NCS engineers are conversant with this DDS it will obviate learning the new DDS, if chosen otherwise. A fresh Single Tender Enquiry was floated and the expected order price is less than Rs.10 Crore,” GM Majumdar wrote to the CVO on 9 February 2017.

This new found solution to douse the scandal was clearly an afterthought, reveals the documents sent to defence ministry and the CVC. The vigilance report clearly stated that Request For Proposal (RFP) even before the procurement process began, was finalised in coordination with the CRL. Nowhere, documents mentioned CRL team’s observation that they have in-house capability of security solution and therefore there was no need to purchase it from a private vendor at such a high price.

Even after RFP, the two members of CRL were part of the evaluation process and nowhere during the assessment process, the members acknowledged having in-house capability for the security solution that could save taxpayers money. In fact, further investigation revealed that UK’s company India representative M/S RTTS had held meeting at CRL Bangalore but the issue of having this in house security specification capability was not raised.

“A meeting with the vendor M/S RTTS at CRL Bangalore was conducted and the vendor has informed during discussion that PoC had ambiguous requirements not in line with PoC document, hostile environment during conduct of PoC by some of the PoC team members, required infrastructure which has to be provided by BEL was not provided,” the investigation report said.

Sharma claimed, the BEL officials brought up the issue of CRL having security solution only after procurement came under the vigilance scanner to conceal the alleged irregularities.

Subsequently, the CVC, not pleased with soft action of merely issuing warning letters to accused officers, wrote to BEL CMD MV Gowtama on 5 July 2017 for taking appropriate action.

“The Commission has observed that the tender was scrapped but the violations are serious in nature. The officers concerned have been let off with very lenient action. The Commission has desired that the CMD, Bharat Electronics Limited may review it sou-moto, if provision exists,” Ajay Kanoujia, Director, CVC wrote to Gowtama.

Later on 17 July 2017, Manager Vigilance in a note decided to send a reminder to the CMD observing that action against accused officers were indulgent.

“In the subject case, CVC’s observation were in line with Corporate Vigilance’s observations that a lenient view has been taken by the disciplinary authority without analyzing corporate vigilance letter/report, to close the case with minor penalty actions for the reasons not mentioned in the corporate vigilance report. In this regard, in line with CVC recommendations, it is proposed to send a letter to CMD to initiate appropriate major disciplinary proceeding action on attempts done by delinquent officers,” the note said.

Further, file noting suggests that another reminder for action in the case was sent to the CMD on 9 April 2018. It is also learnt that similar irregularities were unearthed in the procurement of database (DB) and Operating System which were later rectified after an internal probe flagged the wrongdoings.

Similarly, in civil construction, the issue of a single vendor for design consultant and procurement from the related parties have come under the vigilance scanner. Instead of taking action against the accused officers named in the vigilance report, the defence public sector undertaking has suspended members of the investigation team, who exposed the corruption.

“The same modus operandi has been followed with the vigilance team which brought out the corruption in selection of the design consultant and civil infrastructure ordering. The report of the vigilance enquiry has been downplayed and every member who was part of the vigilance enquiry has been charge sheeted, suspended or given punishment postings,” Sharma wrote to the CVC.

CBI finds Embraer deal fixer, may unmask bribe recipients

TNN | Updated: Sep 29, 2016,

embraer-29-sep-2016NEW DELHI: CBI claimed on Wednesday that it has managed to track down a middleman, a foreign national, who was allegedly paid $5.5 million as commission by Brazilian company Embraer to bag a Rs 1,350 crore ($208 million) jet deal with India in 2008.

Sources said investigation has established that the payment was linked to the sale of jets to India. Although sources refused to identify the “middleman” or spell out his nationality citing confidentiality clause undergirding cooperation among investigating agencies, they said he is a controversial figure and has been known to be conduits for arms deals. “We will ask Embraer why did they pay such a big amount to the gentleman in connection with the deal with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for airborne surveillance systems,” said a CBI officer, adding that the breakthrough could put the agency on the trail of other beneficiaries.
CBI sources said they will approch law agencies of some countries, including Brazil and UK, to get details on him and other aspects like the mode of payment. “That is how this business functions. The defence contractor pays the money to the middleman who, after retaining his own share, distributes the money to those who may help him swing the deal,” said a source.

CBI takes Tatra trucks probe to foreign shores

Neeraj Chauhan, TNN | Apr 26, 2012, 02.43AM IST

NEW DELHI: The CBI’s probe into the Tatra scam is spreading internationally, with the agency finding clues of a far more sophisticated web of money transfers than what was presumed until now. The agency is set to issue Letter Rogatories (LRs) to Hong Kong and Singapore, where it believes NRI businessman Ravi Rishi, the key figure behind Tatra trucks’ supply to the Indian Army, had complex financial operations, and some of which could be linked to the Tatra contract.

Army chief General V K Singh in his statement to the CBI had claimed that he was offered Rs 14 crore by Lt Gen Tejinder Singh on behalf of Rishi, and he was told that officers before him have collected similar bribes. It is possible, sources admit, that Rishi could have been transferring money across secretive tax havens to pay off some of his Indian contacts. CBI has already issued LRs to Czech Republic, Slovakia, the UK and Liechtenstein, seeking details of Rishi’s companies and trusts. Sources said Rishi has been operating companies in both Hong Kong and Singapore for the past several years, and may have been transferring money from these countries to tax havens and other destinations.

ToI has already reported that he operated at least one trust in Liechtenstein since 1986, and this trust had been controlling at least one of his Hong Kong firms.

Besides, the CBI has established that the “supply of Tatra trucks to the Army was very irregular since 1997” and that “indigenization process of the Tatra was very slow”, said sources, indicating that the noose may be tightening around some BEML officials.

According to sources, BEML chief V R S Natarajan failed to give satisfactory response on both the counts during his questioning by the CBI. On Wednesday, BEML’s director (finance), J B Diwale, was questioned for several hours. The CBI is now certain, based on documents from the UK, that Tatra Sipox was just an “agent” for the manufacturing company. Indian military procurement rules do not permit dealings with agents.

Skeletons tumble out of Tatra-tainted Natarajan’s closet

FRIDAY, 20 APRIL 2012 00:16 PNS | NEW DELHI HITS: 263 – The Pioneer

Under VRS Natarajan, PSU giant BEML was involved in large scale irregularities that went beyond Tatra truck deal. The CBI on Thursday registered an FIR against him for cheating and criminal conspiracy in hiring a consultancy firm without tendering process.

The noose is fast tightening around Natarajan, who has been Chairman and Managing Director of defence PSU BEML for almost a decade, with the CBI set to more cases following sanction for prosecution granted by the Defence Ministry.

At least six complaints of alleged financial misdemeanour by Natarajan is under CBI scanner.

After registering a case against Natarajan and Director of Coimbatore-based Astral Consultants CS Srivatsan for allegedly tweaking tenders to favour the private firm by cheating BEML, the CBI conducted searches at the official and residential premises of the duo at Bangalore and Coimbatore.

Natarajan, Srivatsan and other unnamed persons have been booked under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code and certain provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The case related to award of contract for the implementation of Enterprises Resource Planning Project in the public sector undertaking during 2004-09.

According to the CBI FIR, Natarajan and Srivatsan were part of alleged criminal conspiracy to award work worth Rs40 crore to Astral Consultants.

“It is alleged that the accused persons were parties to a criminal conspiracy entered amongst themselves at Bangalore and other places during 2004-09 to cheat M/s BEML in the matter of award of different works relating to the implementation of Enterprises Resource Planning Project in M/s BEML causing wrongful loss to M/s BEML and wrongful gain to others,” a CBI spokesperson said here.

Teams of CBI officials reached the Bangalore-residence of Natarajan, residence of Srivatsan, besides Coimbatore office of Astral and took into their possession some “incriminating” documents related to the tendering process and communications exchanged with the company, CBI sources said.

Natarajan is already facing CBI heat for his suspected role in a separate case regarding alleged irregularities in the procurement and supply of Tatra all terrain vehicles to Army. Natarajan has not been named so far in the Tatra procurement scandal case but the agency suspects that he was the mastermind of the entire scam.

The agency suspects that Natarajan in collusion with Vectra boss Ravi Rishi renewed the deal between BEML and UK-based Tatra Sipox in 2003, four years before the same was to be renewed, for supply of the all terrain vehicles to the Army. Tatra Sipox, according to the CBI FIR, was an intermediary firm and not an original equipment manufacturer. The original manufacturer of the Tatra trucks is Tatra Venus and defence procurement rules provide for procurement from OEMs only.

Tatra case: Rishi’s money trail leads CBI to UK

CNN-IBN India | Updated Apr 08, 2012 at 09:46pm IST

New Delhi: The CBI is looking into the payments made by defence PSU BEML to Tatra Sipox UK for the supply of all terrain trucks and plans to send judicial request to the United Kingdom seeking details of its financial transactions and ownerships.
The agency suspects that payments from BEML were actually going to a tax haven, CBI sources said, adding that they are probing into it but added that the investigations are in preliminary stage.
The sources said at present they are likely to send Letters Rogatory to the UK seeking information on financial transactions of Tatra Sipox UK in which Vectra Chairman Ravinder Rishi has been a Director, owning substantial shares.
The agency will also demand details of Tatra Sipox UK’s association with Czech-republic based Tatra a.s, they said.
Rishi has refuted allegations of any wrong doing and is said to be co-operating with the agency during his questioning sessions during last week, the sources said.
The CBI is now focusing on the role of officials of Defence Ministry, BEML and army and may question them in connection with the case soon, they said.
The sources said it was in 1997 that Tatra Sipox UK signed the truck supply deal with BEML which was in alleged violation of defence procurement rules which say that procurement should be done directly from original equipment manufacturer only.
The CBI has alleged that since Tatra Sipox UK was not the original manufacturer of these all terrain trucks, the rule that defence procurements should be made from original
manufacturer was violated.
Meanwhile, Czech Republic-based Tatra a.s. had said in a statement that it supplies for India various truck components (“CKDs”) that make up approximately 30 to 35 per cent of a complete vehicle.
“The remaining components are made or supplied by other manufacturers or by BEML, an Indian government controlled company that also assembles the Tatra branded vehicles and then sells and delivers them to customers within India under license agreement for Tatra a.s,” it had said in a statement.
It had also stated that neither Ravi Rishi nor his investment company Vectra Limited, control or have controlled — directly or indirectly — Tatra a.s. “The British company Vectra Limited is a minority stakeholder in Tatra holdings and in principle holds one of
the four votes.
“Nonetheless, Tatra will request from Mr Rishi and Vectra Limited an explanation of the information about any initiated investigation of him and Vectra Ltd by Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as it relates to sales of products branded with the ‘Tatra’ name,” it had said in a statement.

Tatra deal: CBI probes new company after Gen VK Singh accuses Vectra’s Ravi Rishi

Neeraj Chauhan, TNN Apr 13, 2012, 12.40AM IST

NEW DELHI: CBI is investigating Venus Projects, a second company belonging to London-based businessman Ravi Rishi of Vectra group, after the NRI was named by Army chief Gen V K Singh as the person behind a Rs 14-crore bribe offer made to him in September, 2010.

The CBI is scanning Rishi over a complaint by Gen Singh that he was approached by retired Lt Gen Tejinder Singh for a contract for supply of Tatra trucks that the Army chief has said were substandard.

Rishi is being investigated for his links with Venus Projects as agency sources said the company was used by him for purchasing spare parts for Tatra trucks. The agency believes that the deal was signed between Rishi’s Vectra Group and BEML officials within three days of their meetings in 1997.

Sources said, “There was a meeting between BEML officials, Ravi Rishi’s Vectra group, Tatra Slovakia and other associates on June 11, 1997, in Slovakia, and on June 14, 1997, the MoU for procuring 600 Tatra trucks was signed in Bangalore”. CBI suspects BEML, a defence PSU, did not have a board meeting before the hurriedly-signed MoU.

Venus Projects is being seen as another link between Rishi and the Czech firm that projected the UK-based businessman’s Vectra group as the original equipment manufacturer to ensure that it remained central to any deal signed with BEML for supply of Tatra trucks, and didn’t flout the procurement norms.

Agency sources say that they have sought time from Gen V K Singh to know more about the bribe offer. The probe team is hoping to meet the Army chief on Friday, and later call Tejinder Singh for questioning.

The agency has sought documents of Venus Projects and Tatra Sipox (UK) to know about the meetings held in June, 1997. CBI is also likely to call officials of BEML who were involved in the MoU signed on June 14, 1997. CBI is also examining a large number of documents related to contracts of BEML for procuring Tatra trucks since 1997. The agency will also be questioning BEML chief V R S Natarajan soon.

The agency is also in the process of sending Letter Rogatories (LRs) to Czech Republic (original Tatra a s is based there), Slovakia and the UK.

Will anyone dare audit the DRDO?

Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Five

Will anyone dare audit the DRDO?

Amitav Ranjan
Posted: Thu Nov 16 2006, 00:00 hrs
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 15:

For a full 20 months now, the Defence Ministry has been sitting on two crucial recommendations of a committee on reforming defence procurement chaired by former Economic Advisor to the Finance Minister Vijay Kelkar. Not only have these not been made public, there’s been no action on any. It’s not difficult to understand why.

These two recommendations have to do with what is unspeakable at the Defence Research & Development Organisation: the need for an “independent audit” of its abysmal record of delay and waste in virtually all weapons programmes, as reported in the ongoing series in this newspaper.

Numbered 6.19 and 6.20 in the report, accessed by The Indian Express, the Kelkar panel, including scientists, officials of the three service chiefs and industry organisations, said that the Defence R&D Board, the apex review mechanism headed by the DRDO chief, should also include representatives from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

This, the Committee noted, was “in order to enable the Defence R&D Board to draw the expertise and experience from institutions falling outside the purview of defence.”

Second, the Kelkar Committee recommended that DRDO be periodically reviewed “for its functioning” by an independent high level committee and the first such review should be initiated in 2005. The reason: “DRDO has expanded considerably and tried to create in-house research facilities for all defence requirements. This, perhaps, is not a very cost-effective move…DRDO, as a research body has also not been reviewed by an external and independent group of experts”, a process the Kelkar Committee said would compel DRDO to “reform wherever necessary”.

Not just Kelkar. In 2004, the Late J N Dixit, then National Security Advisor, had strongly argued for a comprehensive audit of DRDO’s dubiously expensive project record.

However, such advice is blasphemy in the DRDO. So on January 2 this year — nine months after the Kelkar Committee report was submitted — when the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence asked DRDO what it planned to do about new auditing mechanisms, this is how the DRDO replied: “DRDO has enough audit and reviews of the projects at various stages. It is not considered necessary to introduce additional audit and reviews.”

Limited audits of DRDO were conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in 1988-89, 1992-93 and in 1997-2001 but these focused on manpower utilization, procurement of systems, all concluding derelict financial management and inexplicable expenditure. These reports were followed up by Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee reports, the last one in August 2005 recording massive wastages in 15 major DRDO establishments.

But the fact remains, there has been no single comprehensive audit of the DRDO or its functioning. Perhaps this is what prompted Comptroller and Auditor General V N Kaul to say today at a seminar in the capital on defence finance…”Defence R&D is an area where accountability often takes shelter under the policy of self reliance, and indigenization becomes a reason for delay…accountability of domestic R&D organizations needs to be re-emphasized to enable better assessment of return from investment. Sensitizing of the defence services to the role of public audit is essential.” But an investigation by The Indian Express into official records and testimonies shows that it will take more than a CAG speech to sensitise DRDO. Consider these:

• Not only has DRDO testified to the Standing Committee in January that it has more than sufficient auditing mechanisms, it wants less interference from the government, and even less accountability. In fact, in what the armed forces call preposterous, DRDO chief M Natarajan told the Standing Committee: “We intend examining the possibility of a structure similar to Space Commission/ Atomic Energy Commission to bring about greater autonomy in our functioning…This may take some time to evolve conceptually, before we could seek government approval for the same.”

• The highest monitoring body for DRDO, the DRDO Research Council (DRC), is in-house and under the control of the DRDO chief, who personally reviews its progress. DRDO has testified to the Standing Committee that it has “no scientific audit of DRDO projects as such”, and justified this by indicating the existence of feasibility studies for projects, decision aid for technology evaluation (DATE), in-house project peer reviews and post-project reviews.

• All DRDO projects costing more than Rs 2 crore are to be compulsorily “peer reviewed” by an expert committee for their viability. The Peer Review Committee (PRC) is necessarily an in-house mechanism.

 

• There are three-tier monitoring boards for all projects over Rs 100 crore. All these boards are under the aegis of the DRDO.

• This September, Army vice chief Lt Gen S Pattabhiraman reviewed 40 DRDO staff projects for the Army and found just three of them on track. Later, in the same month, DRDO chief Natarajan recommended to the Standing Committee that time extensions and cost increases be jointly endorsed with the services for government approval. In other words, DRDO would have sole control over projects but would rather not be accountable all alone.

• In its latest testimony, DRDO has said that accountability “cannot be fixed for loss of time in projects” and that slippages are due to “technological problems and not negligence”. Yet, on September 22, it officially asked the government for the freedom to recommend additional project authorizations, and that the Department of Defence Production (DDP) should ensure compliance.

• Given that the three services are the ones most visibly complaining about DRDO delays and results, DRDO has recommended that equipment trials be conducted by an independent test and evaluation agency, preferably with Integrated Defence Staff or DG Acquisition. In other words, DRDO doesn’t trust the armed forces but puts itself above all questioning.

Audit Mechanism

India

C&AG audits defence expenditure and individual performance of DRDO programmes but ministry justifies with scientific reasons for shortcomings and delays. No independent or external audits for project performance.

USA

US Department of Defence Inspector-General audit, followed by independent technical and performance audit of all programmes. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews financial prudence.

UK

National Audit Office (NAO) reviews financial performance of defence branches, independent performance audit for programmes