Revised Requirements For Requesting Participation In The: Fill & Download for Free

This Lian Yak Building in Singapore, which housed the Hotel New World,collapsed in less than 1 minute on 15th March 1986 leaving its occupants no chance of escape.This was the worst civil disaster ever in Singapore. I remember this incident vividly as I was in the military back then. I was about to go on my annual leave but had to shelf it as I was put on standby to assist when required. The collapse did not leave a single wall or column standing and reduced the entire building to rubble. Rescue operations were hampered by the fact that the rescue personnel were not trained nor equipped to deal with such a situation. We had to request help from British, Irish and Japanese tunneling experts/engineers. They were fortunately in Singapore to assist us in the construction of our fledgling subway (ie our MRT,..Mass Rapid Transit) then.A Presidential commission of inquiry to investigate the causes of the collapse was appointed subsequently. Despite what others think of Singapore being a disciplined country, the collapse was due to inadequate structural design of the building. The building’s architectural plans and structural drawings were drawn up by unqualified draughtsmen. This was further exacerbated by the “cutting of corners” during construction. Since this incident, our building codes and laws have been revised to enforce a maintenance check every 5 years and to encourage building owners to adopt more stringent standards in reviewing building plans, testing structural materials and supervising structural works.The Singapore Civil Defense Force (i.e. Fire Brigade, Disaster Rescue, Paramedics etc.) have since also improved their capabilities to handle disasters such as this. As a testament to their capabilities our SCDF has United Nations Disaster Assistance and Coordination (UNDAC) - trained officers on stand-by for deployment under the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) to disaster- hit countries for disaster assessment and coordination. Its UNDAC members has participated in international rescue missions in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Myanmar and Papua New Guinea. Moreover, as part of SCDF’s effort for Global Humanitarian Outreach, SCDF has obtained the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) External Classification of its Operation Lion Heart Contingent as a Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Team, being the first in Asia to attain this classification.SCDF search-and-rescue team lands safely in Laos, preparing for search operationsSINGAPORE - The 17-member search-and-rescue contingent from the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has arrived in Laos and has conducted an aerial recce mission to assess the area of operations.. Read more at straitstimes.com.https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/scdf-search-and-rescue-team-lands-safely-in-laos-preparing-for-search-operationsPic above: SCDF in earthquake hit Natou City, Taiwan.Yup!… Singapore maybe a very disciplined country, however, we are not perfect and do make mistakes. We do have our rotten apples too. That being said, we do learn from our mistakes and continually try to improve ourselves.

Project size, team structure, industry matter here - but I’ll simplify based on common industry scenarios.Technical leads are often in charge of the following:Managing the technical scope of the project before, during, and after delivery.Working closely with project managers and product owners during the discovery phase.Providing estimates by coordinating assignment requirements with PM, PO, internal team.Identifying possible threats that may jeopardize the launch of the project.Allocating time for R&D before or in the early phases of development and software architecture.Evaluating and advising on building the right team (based on each one’s individual strengths).Working closely with the rest of the technical team during the implementation phase.Responsibly disclosing possible caveats during the project development.Coming up with alternative solutions, workarounds, shortcuts (if needed) in case plan A doesn’t work as anticipated.Reviewing code, merging requests, commenting on possible bottlenecks introduced by team members.Handling deployments (along with DevOps/system engineers).Participating in client calls together with project or account managers - after revising the agenda and outlining technical matters to be discussed over the call (if any).Identifying scope creep early on and coordinating with project/account managers.Larger organizations may have multiple technical leads covering different project segments (various layers, different components, APIs, infrastructure).But the day-to-day of a technical lead is dynamic. - It may require coding as well, usually involves daily/weekly meetings with the tech team, identifying obstacles, making sure that the project runs as expected from a technical standpoints.

Reproduced from my blog at AgustaWestland Bribery Scandal - Timeline & Factual AnalysisQ: What is AgustaWestland?AgustaWestland(AW) was formed in 2000 as a merger of Agusta(Finmeccanica's subsidiary) & Westland Helicoptors(GKN's subsidiary). Agusta specialised in making commercial choppers while Westland was the only company manufacturing UK's military choppers. The two companies help merger talks while developing EH-101(aka AW-101), a military cum civil chopper, amidst the consolidation phase of Europe's aerospace and defense industry. The rationale of the merger was not exploiting synergies or cost-cutting but producing newer products used for both civil and military purposes as well as leveraging each other's geographical influence. GKN bought out its share in 2004 leaving Agusta as the sole owner.Q:Why were the choppers needed? What's the background?It was perceived that Mil Mi-8s, the existing choppers in until 2000, would become obsolete due to major operational constraints such as inability to operate efficiently during night time and adverse weather conditions. Also, after the 1999 Kargil war, it was required that choppers be procured which could operate at a height of 6000 meters(Siachen Glacier) and could also be used for transporting VVIPS since Mi-8s weren't that comfortable.Q:What was the criteria to select the choppers? Why were AW-101 selected over its competition?A Request For Proposal(RFP) with the above requirements was floated to 12 vendors out of which 4 responded and the IAF's technical evaluation committee shortlisted 3 including EH-101 of AW. But since EH-101 was not yet certified to fly at 6000 m, it didn't participate in the further flight evaluation round. The Russian helicopter Mi-172 could not comply with 7 mandatory Operational Requirements (ORs). That left only Eurocopter's EC-225 as the default choice and IAF's report was sent to PMO in the latter part of 2003. Then Brajesh Mishra, NSA to then PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee, asked the SPG, responsible for VVIPs protection, for its comments. The SPG apparently said the EC-225 was unsuitable because its cabin height was too short (at 1.39 metres) and that neither the VVIPs nor the SPG personnel would be able to stand upright inside such a cabin. Mishra then asked the then Air Chief Marshal to broaden the competition and consider SPG's concerns. The new specifications being considered suggested the helicopters must be able to fly at an altitude of 4500 meters(same as Mi-8s) since the PM & President rarely traveled at bigger heights and that its cabin must be at least 1.80 m in height. But, in January 2004, the Air Force insisted on keeping height at 6ooo m as anything less would cut off VVIP helicopters from traveling from Leh valley to Srinagar which involves crossing Zoji La Pass as well as the Siachen glacier. This view changed when Air Field Marshal SP Tyagi became the chief and agreed to the reduced height norm. Also, the quantity of helicopters proposed for procurement was revised from 8 to 12 helicopters by adding 4 helicopters in non-VIP configuration for security reasons. It was not until 2006 that a fresh RFP, with the same specifications, was issued under UPA-1 to six vendors. Three companies -- the makers of Mi-172, Sikorsky which made the S-92 helicopters and AW-101 -- responded to the RFP. Meanwhile, the defense ministry put in place a new concept -- the Defense Procurement Procedure. Under this, all companies that bid for contracts above Rs 1 billion have to sign an integrity pact that binds the companies to give an undertaking that no bribes would be paid or that agents would be used in the contracts. The Russian company that manufacturers the Mi-172 withdrew from the competition at an early stage refusing to sign the integrity contract. That left AW and Sikorsky in the race. According to IAF sources, the S-92 was found to be non-compliant on four counts:It could not reach 15,000 feet without maximum power.Its 'hover out off ground effect' was insufficient.Its drift down altitude did not meet the requirement.Its missile airborne warning system was not up to the mark.AW, with its three engines, was a bonus, according to IAF test pilots since one engine failure still meant it had two engines to fall back upon. Sometime in 2009, Air HQ sent its recommendation to the defense ministry and after going through stringent financial and technical requirements, a contract was signed in February 2010.Q:How do the various choppers compare? Which one should have been selected ideally?HOGE - The height at which the helicopter can fly in open air. HOGE = Hover Out of Ground Effect. As altitude increases, the air becomes thinner and at a point the machine will no longer be able to produce enough lift to support its weight.HIGE - Maximum height (measured in feet) at which the helicopter can fly over a surface. Flying near the ground requires less power to lift the machine.A HIGE altitude ceiling of 12,000 feet and a HOGE altitude ceiling of 10,000 feet means that a skilled pilot could fly over a 12,000 foot peak while keeping the helicopter close to the ground.Range - This is the distance that the helicopter is able to travel on a single tank of fuel.As you could see, AW-101, although expensive to procure and run, trumps other choppers on most of the counts. But that doesn't make it the right buy. We required VVIP choppers for high altitude areas(~6000m) and AW-101 doesn't do that job howsoever superior it might be performance-wise.One thing to note here is - IAF, in its evaluation report said that S-92's HOGE was insufficient. But data shows that it's(6500 ft) much better than AW-101's(3500 ft). Higher HIGE & HOGE are desired if the intended purpose of the chopper is to operate in high altitude areas. On these counts, S-92 would have been a better buy.Q:What does CAG have to say about it?PFB the CAG report's findings and my comments:The CAG report points out that the lowering of the altitude requirement(4500 meters) was against the operational requirement(6000 meters) of the procured helicopters, especially in many areas of the north and north east of India. In addition, the single vendor situation remained even after lowering the altitude requirement, because of which the AW-101 of AgustaWestland was selected.Comments - While it's true that the operational requirement was for 6000 meters, a cabin height of 1.39 m in EC-225 would have been very low. At the same time, in the interest of national security(reaching sensitive locations at heights>4500 m), we should have compromised a little on comfort and chosen EC-225 even if it meant no competition. PFB the guidelines as per Defense Procurement Procedure(DPP) 2002 dealing with single vendor situation.The revised Service Qualitative Requirements(SQRs) in 2006 made competition more restrictive instead of making the procurement procedures more broad based to increase competition. The fresh RFP with revised SQRs was issued to only 6 vendors as opposed to 11 in 2002.Comments - 4/12(33%) companies responded to the first RFP out of which 3 were selected for the next round whereas 3/6(50%) responded in the second round, which took place within the next 5 years, after a few SQRs along with the maximum altitude constraint were relaxed. The short number of vendors could be because of the minimum cabin height constraint too which choppers like EC-225 didn't satisfy.The Field Evaluation Trial (FET) of the AW-101 was conducted on representative helicopters and not the actual helicopter. The AW-101 was still at the development stage at the time of the FET.Comments - AW-101, aka EH-101, took its first flight in 2000 for Italian navy. The representative helicopters must have been provided due to either some added configurations required by us or transportation issues. Either way, CAG is right in saying that testing must have been done on the actual helicopter to confirm the deal.Although the 2006 RFP had laid down the necessity of carrying out the field evaluations in India, they were conducted abroad.Comments - The FET of AgustaWestland was carried out in UK and of Sikorsky in USA because of transportation and reassembly issues.Given the low utilisation levels of the existing fleet of helicopters, the Ministry was not justified in procuring four additional helicopters for VVIPs.Comments - AW-101s were supposed to be used by VVIPs such as the PM & the President apart from the defense forces for flying at very high altitudes. The defense ministry said that "The quantity of helicopters proposed for procurement was revised from 8 to 12 helicopters by adding 4 helicopters in non-VIP configuration for security reasons." There is no specific justification given for the increase.Q:How did Sonia Gandhi's name crop up in the entire issue?On April 8, the Milan Court of Appeals, equivalent to Indian High Court ruled that the Rs 3,565 crore AW contract involved payoffs to Indian officials. Overturning a lower court judgement that said corruption could not be proved, the court of appeals found Giuseppe Orsi, the powerful former chief of Finmeccanica, and Bruno Spagnolini — who headed chopper division AW— guilty of international corruption and money laundering.Prosecutors in the court produced a note purportedly written by Christian Michel to Peter Hullet, India head of the Anglo-Italian company, in 2008 revealing that he had advised the people handling the VVIP helicopter deal on the company’s behalf to target people close to Congress president Sonia Gandhi, including the prime minister and some of her closest advisers, to win the contract.Q:What about Congress' charge that "it blacklisted the company but was delisted & again offered a contract by the BJP"?There was an integrity clause in the VVIP choppers deal with AW and after the corruption allegations surfaced in Italy against the company, Congress had no option but to cancel the contract amidst the public outrage against corruption in general in India. But still, the company wasn't blacklisted.In 2012, both the Indian Navy and Coast Guard had issued a request for proposal (RFP) for 100 Naval Utility Helicopters(NUH). At that time, NUH was a ‘Buy Global’ RFP and only AW and Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) had responded. But after the current government came to power, in a bid to promote Make in India which promotes local manufacturing, it was changed to 'Buy & Make in India' RFP. So, AW and its parent company, Finmeccanica, could bid for defense business, not as prime contractors but as partners or sub-contractors to principal vendors.The company was blacklisted, in 2014, after the NDA came to power, when CBI started investigating the issue.Q:What's the role of middlemen Christian Michel, Guido Hashke & Carlo Gerosa? What's the money trail?Christian Michel is the son of Wolfgang Max Richard Michel, who had close links with the Bitish Labor Party. He even pushed a deal that envisaged a biography of Gaddafi being published in the UK and that country's BAE Systems receiving lucrative contracts from Libya. The plan never materialised though.In 2008, Michel approached the then CEO of AgustaWestland John Grandy via email to provide promotional services for the UK firm that “could be paid monthly in connection with the signature of AW’s first new major contract in India.” His commission was paid by AW Ltd through Media Exim which carried out functions including “press services, Indian market analyses and local support in the office in Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore”. Moorbank, a Singapore-based consulting firm also owned by Michel, was in charge of providing assistance with the offset agreement (post-contract) entered into with the Indian government as part of the deal. There's clearly a conflict of interest here since the same man is dealing with the government and one of the vendor companies, which eventually got the contract.The other two middlemen Guido Hashke and Carlo Gerosa used to inflate the price of consultancy contracts with AW. They would then buy softwares from companies owned by SP Tyagi's cousins, again at inflated prices.There was a note, written by Guido Hashke, and dictated by Christian Michel, about the payments which were divided in four parts carrying initials of "AF" (Air Force) 6 million, "BUR" (bureaucrats) 8.4 million, "Pol" (politicians) 6 million and "AP" (alleged to be Ahmed Patel) to be paid 3 million Euro.CBI & ED have to figure out the money trail to the Gandhi family & other politicians to put them behind bars.Q:Who is SP Tyagi? What's his role in the entire matter?SP Tyagi was the Chief in 2004 when IAF agreed to lower the maximum altitude ceiling from 6ooo m to 4500 m. In its findings the CBI claimed, that back in 2004, Sanjeev, Rajiv and Sandeep - all cousins of SP Tyagi, who had acquaintance with Guido Hashke and Carlo Gerosa and entered into a consultancy contract with Gordian Services Sarl, in Tunisia. Gordian Services belonged to Haske and Gerosa, both of whom stand accused in the scam. The agency found out that amounts of 1,26,000 Euros after May 2004 and 2 lakh Euro after Feb 2005 camouflaged as consultancy fee was paid to Tyagi brothers and some of the money was allegedly paid off to AFM Tyagi himself.Q:References?http://www.prsindia.org/administ...Full text: Statement by Defence Ministry on acquisition of AgustaWestland VVIP choppersHow Tyagi brothers lobbied for AgustaWestland after its disqualification in 2002 | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis‘Make in India’ saves AgustaWestland bidAgustaWestland AW101wikipedia.orgMil Mi-8Explained: The AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam2013 Indian helicopter bribery scandalAgustaWestland