CAG FINDINGS AND SC VERDICT ON RAFALE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) presented in Parliament had adverse findings regarding the technical quality parameters made by Dassault Aviation in the Rafale Deal. The report noted that in May 2008, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) had rejected Air crafts based on quality requirements. In review also, the TEC upheld its decision of rejection for Rafale in March 2009. The Ministry of Defence approved the decision to reject technical bid of the Rafale.
In April,2009, the ministry noted additional deficiencies in quality requirements making it to total of 14 deficiencies. Then, the TEC stated tat the feasibility and modalities of implementing modifications by vendor may be verified during field evaluation trials.
According to CAG, this was an irregular process. As per para 35 of Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) of 2006, technical offer once submitted cannot be materially changed subsequently. The Audit noted that M/S Dassault Aviation was provided with an opportunity to significantly modify its technical and price bid which is in complete violation of DPP.
CAG Findings and SC Verdict
In response to the PILs challenging the deal, the centre submitted that deal was in accordance to the DPP 2013.
This means that the evaluation by TEC, Field Evaluation Trials and Staff evaluation was as per DPP 2013 was followed in respect of the new deal according to the Government.
While dismissing the PILs on December 14, the SC noted that deal was finalised after following due process though minor deviations were present. But there is no mention of any fresh testing and evaluation in CAG report for 36 aircrafts.
The rejection of earlier PILs were due to the information provided that joint exercises have taken place on Rafale deal and there was financial advantage to our nation . on this aspect, the court chose to broadly accept claim of the centre.
The centre’s submission that the deal was finalised after “joint exercises” was accepted at face value. However, the revelation in the CAG report that the configuration of the aircraft was the same as tested and approved by the IAF in 2007, raises doubt as to whether DPP 2013 was followed in respect of technical evaluation of 2016 deal. In the wake of CAG report, these fresh questions arise.
By-
Tanishka Grover
Student Reporter INBA