Choosing a Surveillance System Under Budget, Technology and Sovereignty Constraints
A mountain formation needs a new short-range surveillance and target-acquisition system within five years. Three options sit within an envelope of about 4,200 crore. Option A is an imported system, two regiments' worth, delivery in three years with a 30 per cent offset offer, but the supplier refuses transfer of the source code for the sensor-fusion software and quotes depot-level repair charges three times the indigenous estimate. Option B is a DRDO-developed system with an Indian production partner, 60 per cent indigenous content, delivery in five years; it met most parameters in trials but failed the high-altitude cold-soak test and has an unresolved battery-endurance shortfall. Option C upgrades existing legacy equipment with a new fire-control unit and displays, available in two years, delivering roughly 40 per cent of the required capability. The acquisition wing must recommend a course of action to the Defence Acquisition Council.
1. Rank the options using the acquisition hierarchy and state the decision rule you would apply.
Read the worked answer
Starting point: the hierarchy
The acquisition procedure places indigenous design, development and manufacture at the top of the preference order, followed by Indian purchase, then buy-and-make Indian, then buy-and-make, then global purchase. Option B sits highest, Option C in the middle, Option A at the bottom.
But hierarchy is not the whole test
The hierarchy is a preference, not an override of operational thresholds. The decision rule should be: threshold parameters are non-negotiable; desirable parameters are tradeable. The cold-soak failure and the battery shortfall must first be classified - if either prevents the system from functioning in the intended altitude and temperature band, it is a threshold failure and Option B cannot be accepted as offered.
Application
- Option A meets performance now but transfers the sustainment and upgrade path to a foreign vendor permanently; offsets deliver industrial work, not capability, and do not offset dependency.
- Option B offers sovereignty, upgrade control and a domestic supply chain, but only if the failures are fixed on a credible schedule.
- Option C does not solve the problem, but it keeps the legacy fleet relevant during the gap.
Recommendation: a combined Option C plus Option B strategy - Option C as the interim bridge from year two, Option B as the main solution conditional on a funded, milestone-based remediation plan. Option A only as a fallback if remediation fails by an agreed date.
2. Why do the source-code refusal and the depot repair quote matter more than the headline price?
Read the worked answer
They convert a purchase into a dependency
A modern sensor-fusion system is defined by its software. Without source code the user cannot integrate a new radar, certify the system against a new threat library, or fix a defect without the vendor's permission and price. The capability is frozen at the day of delivery while the threat moves on.
The depot quote is the financial signature of the same problem. Three times the indigenous repair cost is not a pricing anomaly; it is the predictable behaviour of a sole-source sustainment provider after competitive pressure has ended.
The reasoning in life-cycle terms
Acquisition cost is a fraction of total ownership. Over a thirty-year life, spares, depot repair, upgrades and obsolescence management usually dominate. So an option that looks cheaper at contract signature can be the most expensive at year fifteen, and the comparison should be on total cost of ownership with a sensitivity test on repair rates and upgrade frequency.
The strategic point
The question is not whether the foreign system is good - it may be excellent - but whether the state retains the ability to modify and sustain it during a crisis. Source-code denial and repair monopolies convert a procurement decision into a sovereignty decision, which is why the offset offer should not be treated as compensating for them.
Judgement: evaluate on the cost of the whole life and on who controls the upgrade path; the headline price is the least informative number in the file.
3. Identify the main risks in your recommended course and how you would structure the contract to manage them.
Read the worked answer
Risks
- Schedule slip in Option B leaves the formation without capability when the legacy upgrade reaches obsolescence.
- Parallel running costs if Option C and Option B overlap longer than planned.
- Technical risk if the cold-soak and endurance failures are harder to fix than the developer claims - a common failure when a laboratory design meets a mountain winter.
- Single-vendor dependence on the Indian production partner, which would recreate the very monopoly the option was chosen to avoid.
- Requirement drift, where fixing the shortfall quietly relaxes the very threshold that made the option unacceptable.
Contract structure to manage them
- Stage the indigenous buy as a development-cum-production contract with milestone-linked payments, and a defined retest at a high-altitude facility with a pass criterion written in advance and witnessed by the user.
- Take a performance bank guarantee tied to the retest date, not to the delivery date.
- Fund Option C as a discrete, time-bound contract with an explicit supersession clause, so it does not become a permanent parallel fleet.
- Qualify a second production source for the indigenous system, or at minimum secure a licence and tooling package that makes a second source possible.
- Write an option clause for additional regiments at a pre-agreed price, and a fallback clause permitting a limited global purchase only if remediation fails by a named date.
Reasoning: the recommendation is conditional, so the contract must carry the condition. A conditional recommendation without a contractual trigger is simply an optimistic one, and the fallback must be pre-authorised or it will be renegotiated under pressure at the worst moment.