Sign Presentation for Procurement Later

Step 1: Need Recognition. ... Step 2: Specific Need. ... Step 3: Source Options. ... Step 4: Price and Terms. ... Step 5: Purchase Order. ... Step 6: Delivery. ... Step 7: Expediting. ... Step 8: Receipt and Inspection of Purchases.

Project management for procurement is usually divided into four major processes: planning, selection, administering and closing procurements. The first part, planning, involves the creation of the official procurement management plan.

Project procurement management is the creation of relationships with outside vendors and suppliers for goods and services needed to complete a project. This process is comprised of five steps, including initiating and planning, selecting, contract writing, monitoring, and closing and completing.

Procurement cycle is the series of steps that are taken to purchase any product a business might require. ... But this whole process(Procurement cycle) has many stages involved in it from Identifying a product to the Payment settlement.

A sourcing or tender process is used to select the best product or service for a certain category of expenditure. ... When selecting suppliers through a tender or sourcing process, the buyer works in collaboration with internal customers or budget holders.

Transparency, integrity, economy, openness, fairness, competition and accountability are some of the fundamental principles of public procurement. They are briefly discussed below.

What Are Procurement Requirements? Procurement requirements refer to the goods and services that must be acquired from organizations outside the performing organization. For a variety of reasons, sometimes performing organizations rely on vendors to provide what's needed to complete a project.

Contracts for Goods and Services Procurement thresholds apply to the aggregate (total) value of all requirements for the purchase, lease, rental or hire of goods and services of a similar type. ... the total value of goods and services purchased during the last financial year; or.

The Procurement cycle is the cyclical process of key steps when procuring goods or services. This interactive tool has been developed to guide members through the procurement process with links to relevant knowledge to support you every step of the way through your procurement journey.

Step 1: Need Recognition. ... Step 2: Specific Need. ... Step 3: Source Options. ... Step 4: Price and Terms. ... Step 5: Purchase Order. ... Step 6: Delivery. ... Step 7: Expediting. ... Step 8: Receipt and Inspection of Purchases.

Project management for procurement is usually divided into four major processes: planning, selection, administering and closing procurements. The first part, planning, involves the creation of the official procurement management plan.

Project procurement management is the creation of relationships with outside vendors and suppliers for goods and services needed to complete a project. This process is comprised of five steps, including initiating and planning, selecting, contract writing, monitoring, and closing and completing.

Procurement cycle is the series of steps that are taken to purchase any product a business might require. ... But this whole process(Procurement cycle) has many stages involved in it from Identifying a product to the Payment settlement.

A sourcing or tender process is used to select the best product or service for a certain category of expenditure. ... When selecting suppliers through a tender or sourcing process, the buyer works in collaboration with internal customers or budget holders.

Transparency, integrity, economy, openness, fairness, competition and accountability are some of the fundamental principles of public procurement. They are briefly discussed below.

What Are Procurement Requirements? Procurement requirements refer to the goods and services that must be acquired from organizations outside the performing organization. For a variety of reasons, sometimes performing organizations rely on vendors to provide what's needed to complete a project.

Contracts for Goods and Services Procurement thresholds apply to the aggregate (total) value of all requirements for the purchase, lease, rental or hire of goods and services of a similar type. ... the total value of goods and services purchased during the last financial year; or.

The Procurement cycle is the cyclical process of key steps when procuring goods or services. This interactive tool has been developed to guide members through the procurement process with links to relevant knowledge to support you every step of the way through your procurement journey.

The original contract for 126 aircrafts to be manufactured in India was scrapped by the NDA government and in its place, it was decided to buy only 36 aircrafts directly from France. The reasoning given was that India needs the aircraft urgently and hence, instead of prolonged negotiations, lets order smaller number of imported aircrafts instead of manufacturing them in India.While it is difficult to say whether money has changed hands or not, ….circumstantial evidence suggests things are not as clean as they seems to be.Let’s examine the issue from many different perspectives.Perspective one: Government Tendering Process: Anyone who has worked with government or knows the process knows very well that Government tendering process consists of broadly two parts: a technical bid and a financial bid. Only those contenders who qualifies for the technical bids ultimately signNowes to the stage of financial bids. Once the financial bids are open, L1 ( least cost vendor) gets the tender. When the bids started, MIG 31, F 16, F 18, Saab Gripen were rejected on technical grounds which left only Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale in race. Those who fails in technical bid, their financial bids are not opened. Rafale and Typhoon ware found, more or less, equal in performance. Rafale won solely on price bids as it was found to be cheaper by almost 10%. The Government is allowed to do price negotiation only with L1 ( Least costly supplier- in this case, its Rafale) vendor. Please note that the negotiation is generally allowed only for prices. However, the Indian Government later on introduced “make in India” and other other offset clauses which were not required at all. If India buys any aircraft in bulk, all the offsets as well as repairs and maintenance are done at HAL ( Hindustan Aeronautics Limited). If the numbers are truly large like in this case, even the assembling happens at HAL. HAL is quite competent to do that. One of the best Multi role, air superiority aircraft SU 30 is being assembled at HAL factories. HAL has an expertise of more than 50 years to assemble, overhaul and maintain these aircrafts. HAL does majority of the work itself while it has more 100+ vendors ( PSUs and private entities too) to handle many other outsourced jobs. Hence, “make in India” is this case was putting wool before eyes. It was already a “make in India” project since it was clear from outset that the aircrafts will be manufactured in India. Once a tender has been opened and awarded. Introduction of additional clauses certainly gives a definite spin to the whole story. Moreover, what was the need to scrap a tender for 126 aircrafts to be manufactured in India with another tender to buy only 36 aircrafts manufactured in France. Secondly, if we are buying only 36 aircrafts and that too all imported and assembled in France, then where will the defence offset clauses go- in greasing the aircraft or in changing tyres of the aircraft?Perspective Number two: Competency: Imagine you are Apple Inc. Indian Government floats a global tender to buy one billion PCs or laptops. Apple won the contract. However, it has to manufacture the PCs/Laptops in India only through Indian vendors. Whom do you think Apple will partner with:Partner A who has an experience of manufacturing desktops and laptops for 50 years + who has already successfully executed many projects with foreign partners and also has manufactured his own computers with slightly inferior specs or withPartner B who has multiple interests like cinema halls, mobile telephony, DTH TV, Financial Services and scores of other businesses. Moreover, the financial stability of partner B is in doubts and even an international rating agency like Moody has withdrawn their rating once they started defaulting on dollar denominated loans. ( I hope you got the message from the analogy above. If Dassault does not partners with HAL and chooses a dubious partner like Reliance who has no experience in aviation and is on verge of bankruptcy, then its serious. Its serious not only for the public exchequer but also for defence of the country. Tomorrow, if Reliance ADAG goes bust, there will be problems in delivery for IAF)Perspective Number three: Emerging Eco System in Indian defence industry: There are rumors that India is soon going to float a tender for 100+ single engine fighter aircrafts for which groups closed to PM had already tied up with foreign manufacturers. Adani group which is in to mines and agri business has tied up with Saab Gripen and TATA group has tied up with Lockheed Martin for manufacturing F 16 for Indian Air Force and F 18 for naval variants of F 18 Super Hornet. The interesting thing here is that neither Adani, TATA or Ambanis have any experience in manufacturing any aircrafts ( leave alone fighter jets). What could have been the probable reason for these foreign manufacturers to tie up with Indian partners when Indian partners are not bringing anything substantive to the table?Perspective Number four: Cost of Single Aircraft Vs Life Cycle Cost: When a tender of 40–50 thousand crores was floated where a single aircraft will cost above 700+ crores, it is simply not possible that Indian Government has missed out such crucial point. It appears that all such discussions on public forums are merely Eye Wash to divert attention from the actual going ons. Assuming a worst case scenario of not considering life cycle costs which are much more higher than buying an aircraft simply, will not it be fair to either scrap the tender or give Eurofighter Typhoon also to share its life cycle costs to see which one is cheaper considering that both aircrafts were found equal in performance and there was only 10% price difference in them?To sum up all discussions, it appears that Indian partners are being brought up in the deals only for one purpose: To facilitate the deals, something in which they have competency for 70 years. The world financial markets are becoming more transparent now. Panama, Paradise, Swiss banks …everything is moving towards greater disclosures. Hence, facilitating deals in a “Swadeshi way” seems logical for a government. Rafale may prove to be the Bofors of BJP government in the coming days.

Originally answered: What is the biggest scam you’ve ever seen?The sad irony of the Kargil Coffin Scam was that not even a single such transfer case was used to carry the slain soldiers during the Kargil war of 1999. Those transfer cases arrived much later.And they were Caskets, not Coffins. Thus ‘Kargil Coffin Scam’ is a misnomer.Caskets are rectangular boxes with hinged lids while the Coffins are tapered at the head and foot with unhinged lids.What Indian govt. at the time ordered was somewhat like this—In 2001, the Opposition, led by SoGa of Congress, disrupted the parliamentary proceedings accusing the BJP led NDA government of a major scam in a Defence equipment deal.The allegations were, primarily, on the basis of a CAG report that claimed that NDA government had purchased the reusable aluminium caskets from the US at an exorbitant rate of $2500 apiece when the actual price is just $172 per casket.The Opposition wasted no time in exploiting the erroneous report to its advantage.The Untold TruthHere’s the step-by-step development of the said (and sad) episode laid out in an in-depth investigative report by Chidanand Rajghatta, the TOI correspondent in Washington, dated Dec 13, 2001.Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...Origin:The alleged scam has its roots in Somalia where a large Indian contingent was on a UN peacekeeping mission.In 1994, seven Indian doctors of the said contingent were killed in a mortar attack in Mogadishu.Lt. Col. Danish, an Indian pathologist, and Victor Baiza, a US mortician, were tasked with the autopsies, the embalmment procedure and finally sending the mortal remains back to India.The caskets used for the purpose were US Army standard issue aluminium transfer cases along with the body bags.Here it must be noted that India at that time was, and still is, using wooden (and cardboard) boxes for the mortal remains of its martyrs minus the body bags.During long-distance hauls, the bodies, after the autopsy, would arrive in pretty bad shapes what with the decomposition process already set in owing to the time passed between a soldier’s death and his arrival back in the country. The insides of the wooden boxes, and sometimes the outside too, would become a mess drenched with the bodily fluids oozing out of the bodies.The shipment from Somalia carried a note from Victor Baiza that if the Indian govt. chooses to keep the caskets then the price per case would be $2000.The MoD (Ministry of Defence) sent them back. However, the reusable transfer cases had the curiosity of the Indian officials piqued. They were impressed. Victor Baiza was felicitated by the Brig. M.P. Bhagat for the job well done. He also received a letter of appreciation from the Indian government.Shortly afterwards, the quest for procurement of such transfer cases on a permanent basis began.In the period encompassing 1995-1998, Baiza received several letters from the MoD regarding the purchase of aluminium caskets.The involved officials, here, erred. Victor Baiza was only a retd. soldier-turned-mortician who owned a funeral parlour in Texas. He was not the casket manufacturer. The officials should’ve contacted the actual manufacturers directly.In anticipation of a potential deal on hand, Baiza started a new company, Buitron and Baiza Casket and Funeral Suppliers, with partner Fred Buitron.Baiza was now quoting a price of $2500 instead of the earlier $2000.The Indian end was adamant on the initial quoted price.Baiza argued that the US govt. has stopped all further orders of the caskets as they are overstocked. Now only one company is manufacturing them and it has increased the price at its end too.Baiza, here, was also considering the bureaucratic channels he’d have to navigate through as the Clinton administration has imposed sanctions on India post Pokhran nuclear tests of May 1998.The procurement thus underwent a period of lethargy only to be revived back with vengeance during the Kargil war of 1999. India was fighting a literal uphill battle and was taking in considerable casualties.In August 1999, Baiza finally visited India. The Kargil war had already ended by then. The new price he quoted was $2663 per case.A week of back and forth on the price with the MoD officials in New Delhi, he signed a deal of $1.5 million promising 500 aluminium transfer cases along with 3000 body bags at $2500 per case and $80 per body bag.The first consignment of 150 caskets and 900 body bags was scheduled to arrive on Feb. 22, 2000. The rest within eight months from the date of the contract.The first lot arrived on the said date. By which time, several months had passed since the Kargil war. The caskets, obviously, could not be used for the Kargil martyrs.A hitch in the dealA flaw in the arrived items is discovered soon. The MoD officials found out that each casket weighs 54 kg whereas in the contract the weight mentioned was 18 kg per casket.Baiza admitted it to be a secretarial oversight from his end. The specification offered by him was that all caskets would be made with an 18 gauge thick aluminium sheet. An 18-gauge casket. It erroneously got noted down as an 18-kg casket.The US standard issue casket weighs the same i.e. 54 kg apiece. The caskets sent earlier from Somalia were also of the same weight.Hence, he said it was impossible to bring down the weight to 18 kg.It, however, failed to convince the Indian officials. The entire deal was promptly scrapped.No army official was consulted before scrapping the contract. Otherwise, they would have sided with Baiza as they had better knowledge of the caskets than the obstinate MoD desk jockeys.The UproarThe fake allegation spree commenced in 2001, after the CAG report, with Congress party accusing the NDA govt. of skimming off millions in the said deal which also included hand-held thermal imagers and snowsuits.The major culprits, according to them, were the then Defence Minister George Fernandes and the Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee.They, conveniently, ignored the fact that purchase orders under Rs. 5 crore do not signNow the Defence Minister’s desk for approval. Or that the ambassadors from India and US had already declared in writing that the caskets in question cost $2768 apiece.Kafan Chor (Coffin Thief) they would shout, including SoGa, whenever the Def. Min. tried to put forth the facts in the Parliament.The Case and AcquittalIn June 2006, the CBI registered a case.In August 2009, it filed a charge sheet against the three Army officers—Major General Arun Roye, Colonel SK Malik, and Colonel FB Singh—and the US supplier, Buitron & Baiza.In Dec 2013, a special CBI court found no evidence and discharged all the accused.On Oct 13, 2015, the Supreme Court gave a clean chit to the former Defence Minister George Fernandes and the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of any misconduct in the fake Kargil Coffin Scam.ObservationChidanand Rajghatta in his report says—“In fact, the purported price of $172 for a coffin would be unbelievable in a country where death is a costly proportion.”His inquiries had further revealed that the normal casket price ranges from $500 to $2500 depending on the material used i.e. wood or metal.The reusable aluminium caskets India was interested in were the made-to-order ones designed as per US Army specifications. They are in the $2000-$3000 price range.The $172 per casket claim by the CAG in his report could actually be the rental price for a single casket.OutcomeThe entire exercise, over the years, with all its good intentions thus ended in futility as 150 top notch aluminium transfer cases still lie unused in some army warehouse instead of playing a role in imparting dignity to the final journey of a martyr.It is evident that the entire brouhaha over the fake Kargil Coffin Scam was actually the scam played by the SoGa led Congress on the NDA govt. and on the Indian public.The Real ScamCongress knew that by, falsely, dragging the plight of martyred Kargil War Heroes they could play with the sentiments of us Indians.It would tarnish the honest image of Late Shri A.B. Vajpayee and his govt. and thereby polish the image of Congress.It was one of the greatest scams they ever played on the Indian public.Present DayNow replace the word ‘Coffin’ with ‘Rafale’ and go through it again. You will find the beginning of the same false narrative being constructed around the French fighter aircraft deal.The focal point of the Opposition’s 2019 election campaign will be Rafale Scam and Lynchistan like narratives inflated with hot air.SoGa’s son, RaGa, is attempting to lead the charge this time. And failing thus far.As for BJP, it has failed to offer a forceful fact-based counter-narrative, to date even when it claims to have actually saved some Rs. 59 crores per (fully equipped) fighter jet in the deal.Nonetheless, it needs to act fast and sharp.NaMo wouldn’t want to repeat the same mistakes committed by Shri A.B. Vajpayee’s govt. and lose the chair.Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...; No scam called ‘coffingate’; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka...