Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Allegations of graft against the Indian Navy

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by Hembo, May 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hembo

    Hembo OLD MOD STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    680
    Allegations of graft against the Indian Navy
    Surya Gangadharan, Jaimon Joseph, CNN-IBN
    Updated May 18, 2011 at 10:07am IST

    New Delhi: RTI documents in CNN-IBN's possession suggest repeated violation of government and Central Vigilance Commission norms in the procurement of marine equipment. Such gear is meant for use in surveys by the hydrographic wing of the navy. But senior naval officers CNN-IBN spoke to say the allegations are not true.

    The RTI documents allege - in 2007 the Navy Hydrographer's Office issued a tender for six survey vessels. The tender included the 10 Remotely Operated Vehicles or ROVs for underwater surveys. The tender shortlisted the US based firm SeaEye but another firm Simrad Kongsberg's name appeared which does not manufacture ROVs.

    In its defence, Navy said - the Request for Proposal or RFP was for the acquisition of 6 survey vessels and 6 ROVs, not 10. The RFP listed Simrad Kongsberg as the unique vendor. But Simrad Kongsberg issued a letter saying it no longer supplied ROVs.Based on this, ROVs were ordered from SeaEye.

    Garden Reach Shipyard in Kolkata which bid for the survey vessel tender, was reportedly advised by the Navy Chief Hydrographer's Office to contact Deekay International, the agents of Simrad Kongsberg, Deekay directed them to SeaEye, which it represents.

    Alcock Ashdown - the Gujarat government owned shipyard won the contract for survey vessels after it was allowed exclude sales tax, giving it a price advantage. This when the CAG had noted that the shipyard was poorly rated and had no history of building high performance vessels.

    "As a standard practice, taxes are not included to determine the lowest bidder. This is done only after delivery. The Navy carried out a Capacity Assessment of Alcock Ashdown and based on this the shipyard was rated capable of building medium size auxillary vessels for the Indian Navy."

    Vigilance inquiries into these allegations have been hamstrung by staff shortage and lack of expertise when dealing with military procurement issues. But vigilance sources told CNN-IBN, there is an institutional bias among all three services - army, navy and air force - towards single vendor.

    This bias gets reflected in the qualitative requirements, when the language relating to certain equipment matches that from a company brochure. This may not necessarily be wrong, the forces have every right to demand equipment which meets their requirement. But it underscores the need for perhaps a radically new approach to defence procurement.
     
  2. Coltsfan

    Coltsfan <b>SENIOR MEMBER</b> SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,040
    Likes Received:
    502
    Isn't that natural that the military would want a single vendor so that they can expedite the purchase.

    Bean counters OTOH would like tenders from a million vendors so that they can sort thru each tender and crunch #s and get the best price, even if it means inordinate delays in getting the equipment.

    Stories like these don't even surprise me anymore!!.
     
  3. xXX-Nair:::Saab-XXx

    xXX-Nair:::Saab-XXx Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,113
    Likes Received:
    831
    Ab iski hi kami thi...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page