Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Brumby

Brumby

Major
A Bar Brother said:
Dassault will commit to liabilities only with certain provisions that HAL won't accept. Otherwise Dassault will not commit to liabilities, which MoD won't accept.

Basically, Dassault wants to rewrite the RFP to favor them. Or they won't sign the contract. That's why the MoD says the contract has to stick to the RFP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



It means Dassault wants no liability.

OTOH, BAE has signed the same liability clauses.

You are talking about contract obligations and commitments that one European country has no problems with, but another does, and you are favoring the one that has problems. If Britain had no issues, they why should the French?
Click to expand...

RFP is not a contract. If it was then that would have been the end of it when Dassault won the bid. All the details and negotiations that had gone on since would be redundant. The fact that there was a period where the missing pieces were dealt with means the terms are subject to final business structure and the nature of the relationship within the program. Potential liabilities arise from that structured arrangement. I would venture to say that the HAL arrangement was not specifically defined in the original RFP. Can you please provide some documentary evidence to suggest otherwise from the RFP. This should include the fact that any successful bidder would be held responsible for HAL's liabilities as the local assembly partner. Provide that evidence in the RFP and I will concede that Dassault is in breach of the RFP.

All contracts are tailored to each business relationship. Any suggestion of having identical terms in my view is incredibly naïve.
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Brumby said:
It is very clear that Dassault has very specific issues on responsibilities over timelines for local production which any clear minded person understands the risk is predicated upon HAL's ability to deliver. This is not something that Dassault can enforce and have control and correspondingly cannot be held accountable contractually. In contrast, the initial delivery of 18 is directly by Dassault and liability is not an issue because Dassault has total control over it.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to compare Sukhoi's responsibilities in this regard (local production) . Do they have better deal then Dassault ? @aksha @A Bar Brotherhttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/members/aksha.8381/
 
A

aksha

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
·
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

3rd Landing Craft Utility
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ship for Indian Navy launched at GRSE.
Click to expand...
LSdDoyJ.jpg


OpPUEMi.jpg


MG1xivZ.jpg
 
A

aksha

Captain
A

A Bar Brother

Junior Member
Brumby said:
RFP is not a contract. If it was then that would have been the end of it when Dassault won the bid. All the details and negotiations that had gone on since would be redundant. The fact that there was a period where the missing pieces were dealt with means the terms are subject to final business structure and the nature of the relationship within the program. Potential liabilities arise from that structured arrangement. I would venture to say that the HAL arrangement was not specifically defined in the original RFP. Can you please provide some documentary evidence to suggest otherwise from the RFP. This should include the fact that any successful bidder would be held responsible for HAL's liabilities as the local assembly partner. Provide that evidence in the RFP and I will concede that Dassault is in breach of the RFP.

All contracts are tailored to each business relationship. Any suggestion of having identical terms in my view is incredibly naïve.
Click to expand...

The RFP is the skeletal framework of any tender or contract. You can't go against the RFP.

You cannot take part in any negotiations without first agreeing to the terms. It's like the terms and conditions you find when you install software, you only have one choice, and that is to accept it. You can't negotiate with Microsoft or any other company on the terms and conditions even though the software you bought had a different contract, a receipt from the retail store.

The HAL as the lead integrator was present in the RFP.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The ministry had rejected any demands for changing the role of HAL in the project saying that it would remain the lead integrator in the programme as per the Request for Proposal issued for the project.
Click to expand...

As for the liabilities, Aksha has provided all the proof necessary and I have provided the DPP of the current procurement process. You merely have to read them.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Guys, personal discussions about your avatars and prior experiences on other forums should be taken to PM.

A simple hello to someone once is fine...but please do not clutter up News Threads with personal conversations that can occur in detail via PM.

So, those personal posts are being deleted.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
A Bar Brother said:
The RFP is the skeletal framework of any tender or contract. You can't go against the RFP.
Click to expand...
Precisely why I am asking that you provide some form of evidence that Dassault is in breach of the RFP. Specifically the RFP (per askha post #1752) stipulates :
(i) A supplier will be liable for non delivery performance if the supplier is responsible for the delay. In this regards, Dassault has clearly stepped up to the first 18 planes in terms of liability
(ii)Non stipulation of responsibility for third party liabilities. I am asking a third time please show me where does it state regarding Dassault's responsibility over HAL's performance. The fact is there isn't any contrary to the optics made by politicians.

A Bar Brother said:
You cannot take part in any negotiations without first agreeing to the terms. It's like the terms and conditions you find when you install software, you only have one choice, and that is to accept it. You can't negotiate with Microsoft or any other company on the terms and conditions even though the software you bought had a different contract, a receipt from the retail store.

The HAL as the lead integrator was present in the RFP.
Click to expand...
In law and contractual obligations, the terms for enforcement and liabilities are specifically defined. You can't simply infer liabilities of your choosing without reference to actual construct of the said document. If HAL is the lead integrator in the RFP, show me where it defines that the supplier has to accept HAL's liabilities.

Please don't use the Microsoft reasoning. IMHO legal matter is not an area that you are familiar with. The Microsoft contract defines the relationship between user and Microsoft including responsibilities and obligations. The retail contract defines the same between seller and buyer. Each serve a different purpose according to their defined relationship in the business transaction chain. In any case, it is a strawman arqument

A Bar Brother said:
As for the liabilities, Aksha has provided all the proof necessary and I have provided the DPP of the current procurement process. You merely have to read them.
Click to expand...

I am asking you for a third time, refer to post #1754 as Aksha's provision of those documents concerning liabilities had been clearly addressed by me concerning liabilities. You are attempting to circumvent specifics by generalisation. We need to deal with facts on this one.
 
A

A Bar Brother

Junior Member
Brumby said:
Precisely why I am asking that you provide some form of evidence that Dassault is in breach of the RFP. Specifically the RFP (per askha post #1752) stipulates :
(i) A supplier will be liable for non delivery performance if the supplier is responsible for the delay. In this regards, Dassault has clearly stepped up to the first 18 planes in terms of liability
(ii)Non stipulation of responsibility for third party liabilities. I am asking a third time please show me where does it state regarding Dassault's responsibility over HAL's performance. The fact is there isn't any contrary to the optics made by politicians.


In law and contractual obligations, the terms for enforcement and liabilities are specifically defined. You can't simply infer liabilities of your choosing without reference to actual construct of the said document. If HAL is the lead integrator in the RFP, show me where it defines that the supplier has to accept HAL's liabilities.

Please don't use the Microsoft reasoning. IMHO legal matter is not an area that you are familiar with. The Microsoft contract defines the relationship between user and Microsoft including responsibilities and obligations. The retail contract defines the same between seller and buyer. Each serve a different purpose according to their defined relationship in the business transaction chain. In any case, it is a strawman arqument



I am asking you for a third time, refer to post #1754 as Aksha's provision of those documents concerning liabilities had been clearly addressed by me concerning liabilities. You are attempting to circumvent specifics by generalisation. We need to deal with facts on this one.
Click to expand...

And I already gave you my answer every time you asked for it. We don't know the exact specifics of the liabilities. All we know is Dassault doesn't want any type of liabilities in aspects where HAL is also involved. They only want liabilities where Dassault is 100% in control, and that's only with the first 18 aircraft.

If you believe what Aksha posted about liquidated damages is acceptable enough for Dassault to sign up, they are not willing to do that.

Dassault and HAL's ability to deliver the next 108 is interrelated, with more work for Dassault on the first 2 squadrons and more work for HAL on the last 3 squadrons.

If you are asking for specific clauses in the RFP from me, then you will never see it for as long as you live. We haven't even seen the Mig-21 and Su-7 RFP, let alone the present ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top