Wednesday, 20 November 2013

The Centre for Digital Economy Policy Research (C-DEP) supports the Indian government’s decision to create a single guideline for public procurement as outlined in the Public Procurement Bill 2012. With a view to synchronize the Government’s procurement policies as currently followed by the DGS&D with the PPB 2012, C-DEP’s observations are given in the following document.

C-DEP recommends that

a) Payment terms, should be revised to a 98:2 ratio from the current 50:50 ratio,

b) The Ministry of Finance reinstates the Suspense Account, and creates a reliable screening mechanism till such time that the Suspense Account is reinstated,

c) The Chief Controller of Accounts (CCA) strengthens the payment process by tracking and updating the registration of authorized signatories who can ask payments to be released to vendors,

d) DGS&D rate contracts allow for a structured process for product upgradation during the time period of a rate contract,

e) The DGS&D moves towards accepting digitally signed documents that do not require ink signed backup copies,

f) OEM test reports in case of ERTL certification requirements be accepted by DGS&D, and

g) The DGS&D creates a mechanism for seamless validity of rate contracts.

3. Background

There is currently no single guideline for public procurement in India. In order to strengthen the public procurement process, the Government of India has taken a stand to streamline all public procurement. As a first step, the government, through the Ministry of Finance, has formulated a draft Public Procurement Bill 2012 which will govern the procurement process for all central government and PSUs in the country.

However, while the decision to create a single guideline for procurement comes at the right time, the exercise can be further strengthened by streamlining it with existing procurement rules. This position paper by C-DEP is based on a holistic, view of what is required to ensure transparency and effectiveness in public procurement since the guidelines need to be viewed and would work in conjunction with each other rather than each in isolation.

4. Payment terms

As a part of the initiatives undertaken by the Government of India to implement anti-corruption measures and strengthen the public procurement process, the Ministry of Commerce has initiated several steps including discontinuation of the suspense account, revision of payment terms for all public procurement through the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D), and steps to take the entire public procurement process online.

These steps have come at a time when the Indian economy is in need of stringent anti-corruption measures. Such measures will increase the transparency of the Indian public procurement process and in turn will boost the nation’s credibility, as well as discourage unscrupulous vendors. However, there is an anomaly.

One of the measures states that the Chief Controller of Accounts (CCA) will make a payment of 50% of the total value of the bill at the time of submission of Proof of Dispatch (POD) to CCA, and balance 50% would be released after the end customer confirms in writing to the CCA that they are in receipt of the goods. While this minimizes the government’s exposure to 50%, it does not serve as a means to check intentional fraud. For all practical purposes, all it does is maintain a control on vendors so that the after sales service needs of the end customer is met satisfactorily for a limited period of time.

More significantly, such a measure is liable to severely restrict market growth for sectors for whom government business accounts for a significant portion of their revenue. This also goes against the government’s effort to woo investments into the country in areas where domestic manufacturing has not yet become competitive on a global level.

Keeping in mind that the IT Hardware sector has been identified by the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council as a thrust area that will serve as a high growth segment to pull the overall economy to a 9% growth path, we would request that DGS&D favourably considers that the IT sector be allowed to claim 100% payment on delivery from CCA until such time that the IT industry has gained critical mass in terms of domestic manufacturing.

As an additional control point to prevent fraud, we would suggest that the CCA write to each end customer seeking their approval in writing within a specified timeframe, mentioning that unless CCA hears from them in writing otherwise, the payments would be released by the CCA.

5. Discontinuity of suspense account

DGS&D has issued a notification that with effect from July 2012, unless the end customer has sufficient credit balance, CCA will not make any payments to the vendor even if an order has been executed. Vendors do not have any visibility to the credit limits of end customers, and are not in a position to discern. Additionally, if a customer has placed orders on multiple vendors at the same time, there is a risk of only the first supplier getting paid, as there is no internal system of checks and balances in DGS&D to stop a customer from placing multiple orders simultaneously.

HP would request that the suspense account be reinstated as per earlier norm. Alternately, DGS&D may set up a screening system so that end users without sufficient credit balance may not place orders at all to vendors.

6. Signature registration with CCA

CCA is supposed to have with them a list of signatories with authenticated signatures for Indentor & Consignee, before releasing payment . We can compare this to a bank allowing cheque credit /encashment, post signature verification. Currently CCA does not maintain the list of authorized signatories, and the system is defunct. However, CCA plans to restart this from September 2012. Authorized signatories change regularly, and payment cycles should not suffer due to this.

7. Product Upgradation

Issue: Under the news terms, DGS&D product upgradation are not allowed during the term of a Rate Contract.

Impact: As we are all aware, the Information Technology industry is highly dynamic and products are constantly upgraded every three to twelve months. In addition, the ecosystem is inter-dependent which means that technology decisions are multi-lateral. Product upgradation not being allowed during the term of a RC will lead to IT vendors stopping supply of that particular product. In addition, customers will be deprived of choice and new technology since upgradation is not allowed. DGS&D shares the industry’s vision of providing customers products with the latest technology, and the above policy would run against this stated objective.

Recommendation: We, therefore, suggest that DGS&D instill a process of reviewing technical upgrades for IT products on a quarterly basis and allow all IT vendors to submit their requests for upgraded or new model amendments, if any. Technology upgradations which are met at the same price points as agreed in the ongoing RC should be accepted by DGS&D. At the beginning of every quarter a week’s window could be allocated for technical upgradation requests from IT vendors. This process will help DGS&D and customers make provisions for new technology.

8. Acceptance of Ink signed/Digital signed documents

Issue: In the new terms, DGS&D has reverted to an older policy where online processes are required to be authenticated by physically signing (ink signed) and stamping copies all documents. This older process has been introduced as online I-calls are still not streamlined and there have been instances where online I-Calls do not show details such as complete name, date of visit, address and so on.

Impact: This process inordinately delays inspection, execution and all other related processes. As a process it works against streamlining business processes and reducing product delivery time to customers.

Recommendation: Ministry of Commerce should advise DGS&D to accept either ink signed or digitally signed documents till the necessary checks and balances in the software system are streamlined, as in the long term, we understand that DGS&D has agreed in principal to move towards acceptance of digitally signed documents.

9. Broad base Product Registration

Issue: Currently, products are registered individually by model. For example, in the present tender for laptops there are 15 variants of AMD based note books and 12 variants for Intel based notebooks apart from 6 variants of other form factors. This means that every laptop vendor has to provide documentation and registration for 33 notebooks. This increases documentation considerably and does not add value to the registration or buying process.

Impact: The ERTL Test Report requirement is a time-consuming and expensive process. Products from reputed suppliers adhere to strict international guidelines and are tested for quality and functioning under all conditions.

Recommendation: We recommend a product or model is registered based on its highest specification which would suffice for all the lower specifications of the same platform. In the case of ERTL reports, OEM test reports should be accepted as against duplicating the process.

10. Integration of software, hardware and peripherals RCs

Issue: According to the new policy, DGS&D has split RCs for different product groups such as Laptop/Desktop, Server, Storage, Software, Printers and peripherals.

Impact: By doing so, customers will now need to issue separate orders for a single solution requirement. This becomes cumbersome for vendors as most of them have partnerships and collaborations at the back-end that are instituted to ensure that a customer gets a complete solution.

Recommendation: The need for separate RC for Software and Hardware should be dispensed with and RCs should be led by the hardware which includes provisions for software, networking, peripherals and so on as may be the case.

11. Validity of Rate Contracts

Issue: Firstly, in the case of Office Automation products and Multi-function Devices Rate Contracts are valid only for a period of six to seven months. Secondly, there is an unusually long time lag between new RCs and old RCs that affect customers and vendors alike.

Impact: Due to the time lag between RCs, time and resources are wasted which do not add any value to the overall process. Without a valid RC no purchases can be made, affecting both customers and vendors.

Recommendation: As a standard validity of all Rate Contracts for IT products should be made for a minimum period of one year. Also, the validity of a Rate Contract should automatically be extended till such time the new Rate Contract is in place.

12. One OEM One Vendor Norm

Issue: DGS&D new policy states that a vendor can quote products from only a single OEM and not multiple OEMs as was the case earlier.

Impact: The One OEM – One Vendor policy has the tendency to create a monopolistic situation and reduces competition between vendors and OEMs. In a multiple bid environment, customers have more than one option to select the brand or technology that is opted for. For example, if a customer wants to buy a particular brand due to its technology offering, however, the vendor has not been empanelled for application software or for Operating Systems or does not have sufficient support infrastructure, then the customer may not be able to procure the technology best suited for his organization.

Friday, 8 November 2013

National Conclave on Technological Sovereignty (NCTS 2013)

Date: November 13, 2013

Venue: Manekshaw Centre

Time: 9:00 AM

Background

As an outcome of the National Conclave on Technological Sovereignty, 2012, it was decided to focus on two key concerns for achieving Technological Sovereignty. These concerns were (a) Further streamlining of the defence procurement process and (b) Institutionalization of partnering with the industry to achieve technological sovereignty.

The National Conclave on Technological Sovereignty, 2012, was held because it is believed that the world is now in an era where warfare will be asymmetric in nature and will be conducted using non-traditional means.

Such non-traditional means include, but not limited to, the following:

· Cyberwarfare

· Economic Warfare

· Food Security Warfare

· Water Warfare (blocking and releasing very large amounts of water)

· Information/ Social Media Warfare

Each one of them can severely impact the efficacy of the traditional military capability. Each one of them requires a very different kind of fortification and defence mechanism.

Cyberwarfare is an enabling mechanism for unleashing devastating damage on critical information infrastructure, that includes financial systems, water systems, dams, airlines, railways, social information dissemination and myriad other installations of strategic importance.

The cyber-bombing of the nuclear centrifuges of Iran demonstrate the capabilities of Cyberwarfare. The direct collateral damage in terms of riots, human deaths etc were also avoided in this kind of warfare.

Therefore Cyberwarfare (ICTEC) enablement is of paramount importance for national security.

The cyber-bombing of the Iranian nuclear centrifuges also demonstrated the issue of compromised information technology equipment that made the centrifuges malfunction and damage themselves. Therefore, Technological Sovereignty is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for preparedness for Cyberwarfare.

Given the nature of ICTEC, it is impossible to develop the entire value chain within the military-industrial establishment, or even within the private industry of the country. It would be necessary to involve sourcing from global locations that would make the challenge of having non-compromised ICTEC a even more challenging task. The issue is compounded by the lack of a dedicated ICTEC cadre within the military establishment that can develop and evolve new cyber-weapons.

Unfortunately, such cyber-weapons are not available in the global arms market and countries that do not have such weapons have no ability to strike back when cyber-attacked.

The discussions on strategic implications of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) revolved around attaining technological sovereignty and indigenous development through combined partnership of public and private sector undertakings. The focal issue was India’s heavy dependence in terms of imports of critical high-end equipment and software from foreign countries. The lack of ownership over critical ICT technology can have serious ramifications for India’s national security especially during times of conflict.

Institutional Framework for Partnering with Industry

From the outcome of the National Conclave on Technological Sovereignty, 2013, it is clear that there is an urgency to create an institutional framework that is able to involve the private sector in India to co-develop the roadmap and the solutions required to meet the challenges of the new warfare paradigms that are fast evolving. There is a need to have an autonomous body that can co-opt expertise from the private sector to create technologies for atleast the non-critical military requirements in the ICTEC area.

It is also absolutely necessary to buffer such an organization from the constraints of the defence public sector units such that the private industry is not forced to use or leverage under-utilized public sector capacity, both in terms of industrial capacity as well as in terms of human skills. The body needs to be given a free hand in conceptualizing the ICTEC needs (in consultation with the military) and then enabling the private sector to develop and deliver the requirements on a long-term basis, that follows an agreed upon roadmap.

The contracts could be of duration of ten to twenty year contracts, similar to what the Government of USA gives to its military contractors for developing and supporting futuristic military technologies. It is recommended that such an organization should have linkages to educational institutions of repute and with significant co-investments from serious private sector players from within the country.

Therefore the National Conclave on Technological Sovereignty 2013 will deliberate on the way forward for the institutional process by delving into the following key issues:

(a) The legal structure of such an institution and participation level of various stakeholders in its formation

(b) Governance structure of the institution to ensure sufficient functional freedom of the entity

1. It is required to create a clear and acceptable process to identify stakeholders of this institution from Ministry of Defence, Industry, Academia, Tri-services and Think Tanks

2. The structure of the proposed institution could possibly be akin to the structure of Telecom Sector Skill Council with an institutionalised government interface.

3. It is required to create an institutionalised interface with the government which acts as a single point of contact for various government ministries involved in Defence related procurement process

1. The Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP) covering the 15 year period needs to be shared on an urgent basis or alternatively smaller parts of it relevant to ICT industry needs to be shared while not waiting for the rest of LTIPP to be shared with the industry.

2. The ownership norms for the intellectual property created under the umbrella of this entity need to be clearly laid down and shared with the industry to avoid any conflict of interest at later stage

3. There is a need to clearly lay down norms for exporting such co-created technologies by the industry and the facilitation of the same by Government.

4. Ensure that the offset policy drives the desired direction of technology in the industry.

(d) Research driven focus of this institution

1. Indian military needs to consider creation of a military technology requirements identification body that is equivalent to the US DARPA structure wherein personnel with deep understanding of the future of warfare formulates the technology creation requirements.

2. Adopt program frameworks similar to Program 7 of EU for driving research in an identified area.

3. The proposed Institution should focus on identification of dual-use technologies (non-critical technologies) and subsequently promote/facilitate a collaborative research & development ecosystem.

4. Sensitive technologies could be procured from Indian private sector R&D labs after due security clearance of the personnel involved and the lab infrastructure.

(e) Source and structuring of seed capital

1. Seed capital could be provided by MoD and could be enhanced by contribution from large Indian industrial conglomerates who have an interest in defence industry

Continuation of the initiatives to streamline the Defence Procurement Process

It is generally perceived that the defence procurement process disincentivizes local production of defence goods. This conclave will attempt to identify the procurement issues as perceived by the industry and propose a model Defence Procurement Process that can address the current situation.

The key issues & concerns identified are

a) Apprehensions of the adverse outcome of category prioritisation on the defence modernisation drive. It appears from the prioritisation provision that the acquisition of critical defence weapons/equipment may get hampered due to the tedious process of categorisation of the procurement programmes and providing reasons to support the decision to classify procurement into a specific category. There is also a need for the categorisation committee to critically examine essential factors like (a) capability of the industry, (b) the difficulty in mastering complex high end critical technologies, (c) foreign restrictions on military equipment and (d) the urgency of induction of equipment by the armed forces before carrying out procurement categorisation.

b) Need to clarify issues related to taxes.

c) Provide simpler processes for evaluating indigenous content.

d) Provide clarity on industrial licensing, implementation and evaluation of offsets.

e) Managing Offsets: There is a need of effective monitoring and accountability in the offset process by (a) enhancing the knowledge and experience of executing offsets, (b) enhanced transparency in offset contracts and (c) increased interaction and cooperation among the stakeholders.

f) Need for fundamental changes specific to ICT systems procurement:

The DPP is primarily designed for procurement of armament and weapon system sector or essentially technology transfer areas which have long lifecycle with little or no upgrades. The ready product is put through field trials for evaluation. In service sector, field trials and 'show me before I buy' are not applicable. It has been observed that in many cases related to ICT projects, the role of the System Integrator is reduced to that of an installation organization responsible for the complete system performance while the specifications mandate outright purchase of COTS hardware & software with the exact bill of material spelled out leaving limited scope for optimization and leveraging the system integrator’s knowledge which could have potentially provided a strategic advantage to the Indian military. Further the foreign headquartered hardware OEMs usually work on up-front payment policies thereby not being a party to the risk in case of a failure of a project.

g) Multiple projects with pilot approach followed by planned enterprise wide rollout coupled with long procurement cycle are resulting in obsolete technology being adopted. This is also resulting in multiplicity of technology platforms that do not necessarily translate into an integrated solution. There is a need to plan for projects at enterprise level followed by phased implementation if desired. The piecemeal approach also potentially discourages larger players in ICT technology from participating in systems development and investing in this sector for the long term.

Defence Procurement Best Practices to be adopted

a) The current procurement is product centric which need to be transformed to roadmap centric. And hence, the implementation of the Ministry of Defence’s declared policy of making relevant parts of the Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP) public needs to be accelerated.

b) RFP Preparation

1. The RFP team of the defence HQs must include experienced officers from the field units of the respective system or domain. The experienced officers should be involved from stage of Accord of Necessity (AON) to the stage when the project is under development.This would lead to a realistic and more critical analysis and identification of the requirements at the field level.

2. In order to ensure higher implementability of RFP’s, RFP’s should be formulated through an open forum consultative process wherein all vendors with relevant vertical domain knowledge participate. Since it is not possible to share the entire procurement plan for particular systems procurement, hence the stakeholder consultation should be limited to vendors from specialized verticals. The final RFP will be the amalgamation of the outcome from each of these consultative processes with the specialized verticals.

3. There is a need to have a robust and accountable change control mechanism for rapid inclusions/exclusions from the RFP/EOI.

4. A public website can be created where non-mission critical and non-confidential requirements/RFI for defence procurements can be hosted for solution providers and academicians to propose a solution. Team ‘Orlando’ of USA can be used as a prototype model for this kind of participative R&D and production.

d) E-procurement should be widely adopted for ICTEC procurement by military

e) Institutional changes for streamlining procurement

1. Ensure a longer tenure for the Procurement personnel so that the experiential learning process is not repeated frequently which hinders the procurement process. Defence procurement must also attempt to institutionalise knowledge, specially knowledge of vertical domains.

3. Creation of tri-services organization similar to Navy’s WESEE (Weapons Electronics Systems Engineering Establishment) which is led by domain experts front the services and which works on conceptualizing future technology requirements of the Indian military.

4. Services of ex-Servicemen need to be leveraged to conceptualize, create, deliver and support the technology requirements of the Indian Military. MoD should consider formation of a defense consultative committee with due representation of people from Services background.

5. Need to have cross-pollination of ideas between DRDO and the defence forces through an institutionalized process of deputation from DRDO to the Indian Military and vice versa. This would help in enhanced sensitivity towards the constraints and requirements of the users and would help deliver appropriate weapons technology.

f) Indian defence procurement must adopt a set of Open Standards to ensure interoperability of systems procured at different points of time from different vendors, thus reducing vendor lock-in, reducing cost of integration and reducing the overall lifecycle cost of asset ownership.

g) MoD should create a repository of acceptable terms and considerations for example escrowing of IPR.

h) Wherever possible, defence procurements should involve bidders beyond L1, such as L2 and L3 in proportionately distributing the order as long as they match the L1 prices. Also, defence procurement needs to consider adopting a bidding process akin to the World Bank process wherein higher weightage is given to the technically higher qualified entity.

i) Offset Management

1. There is a need of dedicated forum for periodic interaction between all stakeholders in order to have a coordinated and synergistic approach towards implementation of offsets.

2. Defence Offset Management Wing (DOMW) needs to be strengthened and manned with appropriate human resources who are empowered to make offsets a reality.

3. The details of status of offset contracts and the names of Indian offset partners are not available in the public domain. It would be beneficial if the MoD could provide accurate and detailed information about the status of offset contracts and the technology/capability received from each contract. Such information will help the stakeholders to carry out cost-benefit and SWOT analysis. The stakeholders could apply mid-course corrections to ensure that the gaps between the stated and achieved objectives are minimized.

4. Transfer of Technology (ToT) should be the preferred choice for 30% offset implementation as it have long term positive effect on indigenisation production of critical and non-critical defence systems

j) Legal Issues pertaining to ICT projects are emerging very different than that being dealt with for other defence procurements and hence there is a need to clearly identify and address them. Some of the suggestions in this respect are

1. Exclusion of clauses owing to the applicability for various kinds of ICT acquisition.

2. Moderation of clauses to tone down the severity attached. Makes both buyer and seller equal stake holders for their respective duties especially for technology & services where the final deliverable is still a concept at the time of RFP.

3. Addition of new clauses as per global standards like Limitation of Liability, IPR issues, Indemnification for all categories etc.

k) Evaluation and Acquisition of ICT Systems

1. Technical evaluation and acquisition process of ICT will have to be planned with considerable inbuilt flexibility in the complete acquisition process and should focus on the end result being sought rather than paper compliance of bill of material.

2. The present two bid system used by Indian military possibly encourages selection of “Minimum Acceptable” performance & quality rather than “Best Possible” performance or quality because post technical clearance all bids are treated at par and “L1” remains the only criteria. There is a need to design selection process that gives due weightage to the performance and quality of the system being procured in adjunct to the cost factor. It is suggested that the present two bids L1 based selection system be modified to an “Integrated Quality & Cost Analysis System (IQCAS)”which is similar in approach to World Bank’s procurement process.

3. The suggested steps for vendor evaluation process are

i. Create an exhaustive list of Operational Requirements (ORs) for the ICT system to be procured and assign marks and weightage to each OR for technical evaluation. The minimum qualifying marks should also be stated for each OR in accordance with the identified “mandatory specifications”.

ii. Each vendor’s offering would then be assessed against this marking system for all features and aggregate Technical Score will be determined.

iii. Mandatory specifications should be clearly defined such that their non fulfillment would automatically disqualify the bid irrespective of overall high score.

iv. The final score for vendor selection should be a function of both cost as well as technical capability (Technical Score) of the ICT system assessed.

4. Commercial aspects related to bench marking and L1 criteria needs an overall change as quality in ICT is difficult to quantify and hence qualitative matrix needs to be built for the evaluation and monitoring.

5. There should be a focus towards having the system independency of the technology platform. This will result in functionality being the focal point driving the whole process.

l) Institutionalize Knowledge Management system in the Armed Forces

1. The need of Indian military need for research, innovation and procurement can be served better by an efficient Knowledge Management system which comprises of three core elements - Build, Access and Disseminate.

2. The KM system will be proactive in capturing the edge innovations from field units and in channelizing them through proper R&D path for broader usage and adoption.

3. Specific specialist “Directorate” should be setup within the Services for facilitating the creation, adoption and usage of Knowledge Management system.

4. It is suggested that for wide adoption and effective two way communication between the Services HQ and field units, the system should be on a cloud based platform, something similar to You-tube but with high level of security and user control features.

m) Promotion of Indigenous components

1. In order to mitigate vulnerabilities in India’s national information and communication infrastructure, indigenous components should be given higher weightage formally through Defence Procurement Policy

2. The Buy (Indian), Buy & Make (Indian) and Make (Indian) projects should be given preference by the government in its defence procurements. The Make (Indian) projects are a new addition and should be the most incentivised

n) Anonymous letter should not be entertained for initiating an enquiry. Due note should be taken only of letters with proper sender details.

Conclusion

It is urgent and imperative to quickly convert the above recommendations into reality in order to ensure that the Indian Military continues to be a fighting force to reckon with.

Since the nature of warfare is rapidly changing, it is absolutely critical that the above proposed Institutional framework for collaboration between the Indian Military, Indian Industry, non-Indian vendors, funding bodies, academia and think tanks is brought into existence as soon as possible.

In the meantime, it is important to rationalize the procurement process in order to strengthen the Indian defence industry and to ensure that the Indian defence industry invests for the long-term into the technologies that are required by the Indian military.

Appendix

Conduct of Seminar

1. The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) will address the above issues holistically in all their dimensions. This will be done in two sessions, excluding the inaugural and valedictory sessions.

Inaugural Session

2. The inaugural session will set the tone for future deliberations. It will consist of the welcome address, the keynote address and the vote of thanks. The keynote address will bring out the broad contours of the issues involved and will act as a beacon for subsequent deliberations. The identification of challenges posed towards achieving Technological Sovereignty in the field of ICTEC will be the highlight of the address. A general overview of the likely way forward would also form part of this address.

Session I : Institutional Framework for Partnering with Industry

Session II : Streamlining of Defence Procurement Process

Miscellaneous Details

4. The seminar will be open to the media.

5. Participants. The participants will be from the three services, strategic community, veterans and academia.

6. Venue. Manekshaw Centre

7. Project Coordinator. Col V Ganapathy, Senior Fellow CLAWS. He may be contacted at mob No 8130011407.

8. Rapporteurs. Ms. Bhhavya Gahlaut for Session 1, Mr Jaikhlong Basumatray for Session 2 and Ms Pratibha Singh for Session 3.

9. MC. Ms. Karanpreet Kaur.

NATIONAL CONCLAVE ON TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNTY - 2013

13 November 2013

PROGRAMME

0900h - 0930h	Tea & Registration
0930h – 1030h	INAUGURAL SESSION Welcome Address: Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch, SM, VSM (Retd), Director, CLAWS Theme Address: Dr.Jaijit Bhattacharya, President CDEP Keynote Address: Lt Gen Anil Chait, PVSM, AVSM, VSM, ADC, CISC, HQ IDS Vote of Thanks : Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch, SM, VSM (Retd), Director, CLAWS
1030h – 1100h	TEA BREAK
1100h – 1300h	SESSION I: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PARTNERING WITH INDUSTRY
	Chairperson: Lt Gen AK Sahni, SM,VSM, DGIT
1100h – 1105h	Introductory Remarks by the Chair & Introduction of the Speakers
1105h – 1125h 1125h – 1145h 1145h – 1205h	· Research Driven Focus to Identify Organisation – Lt Gen JP Singh, PVSM,AVSM(Retd), Senior Advisor DRDO · Governance Structures - Industry Rep from CII/ FICCI (TBC) · Legal Structures and Funding – Mr Amit Cowshish, Ex FA Acquisition, MoD(Finance)
1205h – 1240h	Interactive Session
1240h – 1300h	Closing Remarks by Chair
1300h-1340h	Special Address & Interaction: Defence Acquisition Challenges and Road Ahead for Technological Sovereignty – Mr SB Agnihotri, DG Acquisition
1340h – 1430h	LUNCH
1430h – 1630h	SESSION II: PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS & PRACTICES FOR TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS AND INDIGENISATION
	Chairperson: Director NASSCOM / CII / ASSOCHAM / FICCI Rep (TBC)
1430h – 1435h	Introductory Remarks by the Chair & Introduction of the Speakers
1435h – 1455h 1455h – 1515h 1515h – 1535h 1535h – 1555h 1555h – 1615h	· Aligning DPP for Technology Acquisitions and Indigenisation of Defence Technology – Lt Gen AV Subramanian, VSM, DG WE · Offsets as Facilitator to Technology Acquisitions – Shri AK Gupta, Additional Secretary (Dept of Defence Production) · ICT Procurement: Procurement Challenges and Remedies – Lt Gen SP Kochhar, AVSM, SM, VSM, (Retd), former SO-in-C &Sr Col Comdt · ICT Procurement: Streamlining Procurements, Evaluation–An Industry Perspective (Rep From Industry ) · Lifecycle Management and Technological Management of ICT Systems –** Lt Gen Inderjeet Singh, AVSM,VSM (Retd) Former DG EME
1615h – 1645h	Interactive Session
1645h – 1650h	Closing Remarks by Chair
1650h – 1720h	VALEDICTORY SESSION Concluding Remarks: Maj Gen (Retd) Dhruv Katoch, SM, VSM, Director, CLAWS Valedictory Address: Lt Gen SP Kochhar, AVSM, SM, VSM, (Retd), former SO-in-C & Sr Col Comdt Vote of Thanks:** Dr.Jaijit Bhattacharya, President, Centre for Digital Economy Policy Research
1720h	TEA AND DISPERSAL

Centre for Digital Economy Policy Research