Report 36 of 2016 Union Government Defence PA

lR;eso t;rs
Report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India
on
Working of
Report No. 36 of 2016 - Union Government (Defence Services - Army)

Army Base Workshops
© COMPTROLLER AND
AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
www.cag.gov.in
Union Government
(Defence Services - Army)
Report No. 36 of 2016
(Performance Audit)
Report of the
on
Working of Army Base Workshops
for the year ended March 2016
Union Government
(Defence Services-Army)
(Performance Audit)
PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON WORKING OF THE ARMY BASE WORKSHOPS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para Page
Subject
Nos. No.
Preface iii
Executive Summary v-ix
Chapter-I: Introduction
1.0 Mandate of Army Base Workshops 1
1.1 Organizational Structure 1
1.2 Previous Audit Reports and Ministry’s response 2
1.3 Audit Objectives 3
1.4 Audit Criteria 3
1.5 Scope of Audit 3
1.6 Audit Methodology 4
1.7 Audit Findings 4
1.8 Acknowledgement 4
Chapter II: Effectiveness of Army Base Workshops
2.0 Importance of overhaul 5
2.1 Equipment Profile 5
2.2 Maintenance Philosophy and Intervention Norms 6
2.2.1 Maintenance Process 6
2.3 Backlog in overhaul of important Class ‘A’ Equipment 6
2.3.1 Backlog in overhaul of important Signal Equipment 7
2.4 505 Army Base Workshop (ABW), New Delhi 8
2.4.1 Non-achievement of overhaul targets 8
2.4.2 Delay in overhaul 9
2.4.3 Delay in issue of overhauled Tank T-72 to Units 9
2.4.4 Quality Index of overhauled Equipment and Engines 11
2.4.5 Issue of overhauled equipment without testing 12
2.5 512 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Kirkee 12
2.5.1 Non-achievement of overhaul targets 12
2.5.2 Delay in overhaul 13
2.5.3 Delay in issue of overhauled equipment to units 14
2.5.4 Quality of overhauled BMPs 15
2.6 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra 17
2.6.1 Delay in overhaul of Signal Equipments 18
2.6.2 Delay in dispatch of signal equipments to the units 19
2.7 510 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Meerut 19
Non-formulation of overhaul policy for Class B vehicles – Scania,
2.7.1 19
Tatra and Kraz.
i
REPORT NO. 36 OF 2016 (DEFENCE SERVICES-ARMY)
2.8 515 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Bengaluru 20

2.8.1 Non-commencement of overhaul of aviation rotables 20
2.8.2 Inordinate delay in execution of Work Orders 21
2.8.3 Non-monitoring of Defect Reports 22
2.9 Non-existence of Cost accounting System 22
Chapter III: Infrastructure and Modernization
3.0 Necessity for Modernization of Infrastructure and Technology 25
3.1 Non -Preparation of Long Range Perspective Plan 25
3.2 Inordinate delay in creation of overhaul facilities 25
Creation of overhaul facility two years prior to commencement of de-
3.2.1 26
induction leading to unfruitful expenditure of ` 73.43 crore.
Non-creation of overhaul facilities for ARV VT-72 B and ARV WZT
3.2.2 26
-3
Delay in creation of infrastructure for Component Level Repair (CLR)
3.2.3 27
for Tank T-90s
3.2.4 Lack of facilities for repair/overhaul of MBT Arjun 28
Non-implementation of project Tulip even after thirteen years of
3.3 28
sanction
Non-utilization of proof firing facility worth ` 6.53 crore and issue of
3.4 29
overhauled BMPs to units without proof firing
3.5 Delays in Modernisation of ABWs 29
Ineffective execution of procurement of PMSEs included in approved
3.6 30
Priority Procurement Plan (PPP)
3.6.1 Non-replacement of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) 30
Chapter-IV: Spares Management
4.0 Introduction 32
4.1 Provisioning of spares 32
4.1.1 Failure of Ordnance Depots in supply of spares 33
4.1.2 Delay in placement of demands for spares by CAFVD, Kirkee 34
4.1.3 Non-materialization of indents placed on Ordnance Factories 35
4.1.4 Non-materialization of indents placed on PSUs 35
4.2 Non-availability of critical spares leading to deviation sanctions 36
4.3 Non-replacement of defective stores by Ordnance Factories 38
4.4 Delay in implementation of System Based Central Depots 39
Lack of co-ordination between supply and overhaul agency resulting
4.5 40
in procurement of unwarranted spares
List of Abbreviations 42-44
ii
PREFACE
The Army Base Workshops carry out repairs and overhaul of weapons,
vehicles and equipment to keep the Indian Army operationally ready. There
are eight Army Base Workshops (ABWs), of which five ABWs viz 505 ABW,
Delhi; 509 ABW, Agra; 510 ABW, Meerut; 512 ABW, Kirkee and 515 ABW,
Bengaluru were selected for Performance Audit.
Performance Audit of “Working of Army Base Workshops” was conducted
during July 2015 to December 2015 to assess the effectiveness of the workshops
with regard to timeliness of overhaul, adequacy of infrastructure, timely
availability of spares and quality of the repairs. By highlighting the systemic
deficiencies and recommending remedial measures, the report seeks to bring
about overall improvements in the functioning of ABWs.
The audit has been conducted in conformity with the Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the report has been
prepared for submission to the President under Article 151 of the Constitution
of India.
iii
Executive Summary
1. Why did we do this Performance Audit?
Review of Army Base Workshops was commented in Comptroller & Auditor General
(C&AG)’s Audit Report No. 14 of 1992 and Para No. 3.1 of Audit Report No. 6 of 2005.
The important issues highlighted in the reports included progressive up-gradation of the
Workshops, non-exploitation of available capacities to the full extent due to non-availability
of repairable, poor backup of spares and non-observance of cost accounting system.
This Performance Audit of “Working of Army Base Workshops” was taken up to assess
the effectiveness of the workshops with regard to timeliness of overhaul, adequacy of
infrastructure for overhaul, timely availability of spares and quality of the repairs. The
Performance Audit also looked into the status of assurances given in the Action Taken
Notes on earlier reviews.
2. Key Findings:
There are eight Army Base Workshops, of which seven are responsible for repair and
overhaul of equipment/ weapons and one workshop has been tasked with the responsibility
of indigenisation and manufacture of spares. The Performance Audit covered a period of
six years from 2010-11 to 2015-16. Five out of eight Army Base Workshops (ABW) viz.
505 ABW New Delhi, 509 ABW Agra, 510 ABW Meerut, 512 ABW Kirkee based on the
criticality of the equipment to the Indian Army and 515 ABW Bengaluru being the only
spares manufacturing workshop were selected for audit.
Backlog in overhaul of fighting equipment
The Indian Army has a large inventory of weapon systems and equipment which need to
be maintained and sustained in battle worthy condition. The periodicity of overhauling an
equipment is based on the maintenance philosophy promulgated at the time of induction for
the envisaged life cycle.
• In case of Tank T-72, the quantum of backlog of overhaul has been significantly
reduced from 713 at the end of 2010-11 to 479 at the end of 2015-16 which constitutes
around 20 per cent of total holding.
• In case of BMP-II and BMP-IIK tanks and also in case of Armoured Recovery
Vehicle viz ARV WZT-2 the backlog of overhaul has declined during this period
though in a muted manner. 802 BMPs constituting around 33 per cent of total
holding and 200 ARV WZT-2 constituting 90 per cent of total holding were due for
overhaul, reducing the effective availability of the fleet for the operations to that
extent.
(Paragraph 2.3)
Backlog in overhaul of signal equipment
We observed backlog in first overhaul of 18 per cent of Radar Fly Catcher, 34 per cent
of Radar TC Reporter and 21 per cent of Battle Field Surveillance Radar. Backlog of
25 per cent was noticed in second overhaul of Radar Fly Catcher.
(Paragraph 2.3.1)
v
Non Formulation of overhaul policy for Class ‘B’ vehicles-Scania, Tatra and Kraz
No overhaul policy for Scania, Kraz-255 B/B1 and Tatra T-815 was available with HQ Base
Workshop Group (BWG) and the concerned workshops. Presently, Base workshops are
accepting these vehicles of eight years vintage and above for overhaul as per the direction
of EME Directorate.
(Paragraph 2.7.1)
Lack of facilities for repair/ overhaul of MBT Arjun
124 numbers of Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun were inducted into the Army from 2004-05
onwards. The Tank is due for overhaul from 2020-21. At the time of induction, 69 per cent
components were imported. The two agencies viz Combat Vehicle Research Development
Establishment (CVRDE) and Heavy Vehicle Factory (HVF) were responsible for providing
the components required to sustain the fleet during its life cycle through indigenization or
import. However, owing to the failure of CVRDE in indigenizing the required components,
HVF could not supply any spares. In the absence of spare support, MBT Arjun was not
being operational since 2013.
(Paragraph 3.2.4)
Extent of achievement of overhaul targets by ABWs
• At 505 ABW, overhaul in respect of Tank T-72, during the period from 2010-11
to 2015-16 ranged between 60 to 83 per cent of original targets excepting 2011-
12 when 10 Tanks were overhauled against a target of 50. In respect of Engines
of T-72 also, except 2011-12 which was a bad year as only seven engines were
overhauled against original target of 100, the achievement during other years
ranged from 30 (60 per cent) to impressive 100 (100 per cent during 2015-16)
overhauls. Although the backlog of Tank T-72 for overhauling is 479 during
2015-16, however, it has also come down from 713 in 2010-11.
• At 512 ABW, there was shortfall in achieving the targets vis a vis original
targets in respect of BMP ranging from 13 to 62 per cent; there was relatively
better performance during 2013-14 and 2014-15 as the number of BMPs
overhauled was 104 (more than 85 per cent of target) and 106 (around 70 per
cent of target) during these two years respectively. In respect of ARV WZT-2,
achievement was only 22 against the target of 222. It was only during 2015-
16 that the achievement was in a two digit figure (13) while in earlier years
the achievement ranged from 0 to 03 against target ranging from 02 to 10.
In respect of UTD-20 engines, achievement of overhaul target was relatively
better as overall achievement during 2010-11 to 2015-16 was above 77 per cent
of the original targets.
• At 509 ABW, there were shortfalls in achieving the targets vis a vis original
targets up to 50 per cent in respect of Radar Fly Catcher and up to 60 per cent in
respect of Radar TC Reporter. In respect of Gen Set 30 KVA, shortfall against
original targets during 2010-11 to 2015-16 ranged from nil (2010-11) to 62
per cent during 2014-15. In case of Battle Field Surveillance Radar (Medium
Range), there was marginal shortfall during 2011-13.
vi
• 510 ABW undertakes overhaul of various engineering equipment and specialist

vehicles. 510 ABW had generally turned out respectable performance except that
its achievement in respect of overhaul of Heavy Recovery Vehicle viz HRV AV15
during 2014-15 was merely 10 per cent of the original targets. There was all round
commendable performance during 2015-16.
(Paragraph 2.4.1, 2.5.1, 2.6, 2.7)
Inordinate delay in overhaul

Against the norm of 153 days, overhaul of BMPs was inordinately delayed and the ABW
took up to 1512 days for the overhauls. Similarly, for Tanks T-72, the delay ranged up to
836 days against the norm of 144 days. The average time taken for overhaul of each UTD-
20 engine for BMP was 308 days which was 10 times of the stipulated time frame of 30
days. Overhaul of Radar and its variants also experienced delays up to 921 days.
(Paragraph 2.4.2,2.5.2, 2.6.1)
Low Quality Index for overhaul of BMPs
Quality Index (QI) for overhauled BMP should be 95. We observed that the QI achieved
was far below this. Even during 2015-16 when QI was relatively much better than earlier
years, QI for BMP was between 70.28 and 77.4.
(Paragraph 2.5.4)
Delay in dispatch of overhauled equipment to Units

Backlog and delay in overhauls were further compounded by late issue of release orders by
Army HQ and delay in dispatch of the equipment by the Ordnance Depots. This delay was
mainly due to absence of any laid down norms and time frame for these activities.
(Paragraph 2.4.3,2.5.3, 2.6.2)
Non-availability of testing facilities at the ABWs

As per Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) recommendation, test firing of overhauled
guns was a mandatory requirement. The BMPs and Tank T-72 overhauled by ABWs were
issued to user units without test firing as the ABWs did not have the requisite test facility.
Amphibious capability, an important feature of BMP, could not be tested in respect of
overhauled BMPs for want of dip testing facility.
(Paragraph 2.4.5,2.5.4)
vii
Inordinate delay in execution of Work Orders at 515 ABW

The primary role of 515 ABW is to undertake manufacture and indigenization of spares for
various equipments held by Indian Army. 515 ABW could complete only 27 per cent work
orders of ‘Operational Immediate’ category within the laid down time frame. In certain cases,
the time taken was up to 93 months against the laid down ceiling of 12 months, thereby
defeating the operational urgency. In respect of ‘Priority’ work orders, the percentage of
completion within time frame was 65 per cent only.
(Paragraph 2.8.2)
Non-existence of cost accounting system
While the guidelines issued by the Ministry stipulated that the cost of overhaul of vehicle
and engine would in no case exceed 30 per cent of the cost of new vehicle/engine, no cost
accounting mechanism was in place in the ABWs to ensure the cost effectiveness of the
repairs and overhauls.
(Paragraph 2.9)
Inordinate delay in creation of Overhaul facilities
• Facility for overhaul of ARV WZT-2 was set up in March 2009 after 28 years of
its introduction. The vehicle was due for overhaul since 1996-97, but only 22 ARV
WZT-2 could be overhauled against the total strength of 222. The equipment was
likely to be de-inducted by 2018.
• Due to delays in initiation and sanction of the Component Level Repair (CLR)
project for Tank T-90, not only the project cost escalated from ` 287 crore in 2004
to ` 1835 crore in 2011 but also the first Medium Repair of Tank T-90 which was
due in 2012 was pending.
• Project Tulip, for establishment of additional facilities at 512 ABW, as a nucleus
for repairs/overhaul of communication and night vision devices for BMP II/ IIK
was sanctioned by the Ministry in January 2003 at a cost of ` 22.54 crore. The
project was yet to be fully implemented even after a lapse of thirteen years.
(Paragraph 3.2.1,3.2.3 3.3)
Non-utilization of shooting gallery created for proof firing
Shooting gallery constructed at a cost of ` 6.53 crore in November 2013 could not be taken
over by 512 ABW (May 2016) as it did not have electric and water connection. Besides, 512
ABW did not have authorization of ammunition for test firing of the overhauled guns.
(Paragraph 3.4)
Non-availability of critical spares leading to deviation sanctions
Deviation sanctions were accorded by Master General of Ordnance (MGO) in respect of
398 overhauled BMPs and 179 Tanks T-72. This was necessitated due to non-availability
of critical spares and assemblies. The deviations were accorded for vision devices,
communication sets, tracks etc., thereby impacting the capability of BMPs and T-72 tanks.
(Paragraph 4.2)
viii
3. Key Recommendations
1. In the absence of a policy on overhaul of Class ‘B’ vehicles in Army, these vehicles
are overhauled by the workshops on case to case basis. Ministry may formulate the
overhaul policy for Class ‘B’ vehicles.
2. As MBT Arjun Tanks are due for overhaul from 2020-21, Ministry should explore
and expedite indigenous development of components of MBT Arjun and creation
of repair and overhaul facilities.
3. Since the issue of T-72 and BMP tanks overhauled by workshops to units without
certain vital tests such as proof firing and dip testing have serious operational and
quality implications, facilities for these testing must be created at the concerned
workshops. Army HQ should expedite operationalisation of shooting gallery at
512 ABW and necessary authorization of ammunition for test firing of overhauled
guns.
4. Ministry should expedite the Component Level Repair (CLR) project for supporting
Tank T-90 with repair facilities.
5. Overhaul of vision devices is now being carried out at Opto-Electronics Factory
(OLF), Dehradun as they had accepted the responsibility of overhaul of complete
requirement of vision devices of BMP. In view of this development, Ministry may
review the scope and implementation of Project Tulip for establishment of additional
facilities at 512 ABW.
6. Cost accounting system should be introduced in the workshops to ensure optimum
utilization of resources viz. man-power, machines and materials and to assess the
cost effectiveness of overhauls.
7. As regards urgent requirement of augmenting availability of spares, constraints in
the availability of spare need to be identified and process of making available spares
through manufacturing or procurement from Trade/Ordnance Factories need to be
streamlined. Reasons for delays in execution of Work Orders at 515 ABW need to
be diagnosed and addressed.
8. Quality Index of Overhauled BMP tanks despite improvement during 2015-16 still
remains low and needs to be further improved.
ix
Chapter I: Introduction
1.0 Mandate of Army Base Workshops
Army Base Workshops (ABWs) were established during Second World War to carry
out repairs and overhaul of weapons, vehicles and equipment to keep the Indian Army
operationally ready. In order to ensure battle worthiness of the Indian Army at all times,
Overhaul1 of weapons and equipment has to be a well-planned and comprehensively
executed activity, to neutralize effects of age, usage and restoration of the weapon system/
equipment to Zero Hour, Zero Kilometer2 operational condition. There are eight Army Base
Workshops, of which seven are responsible for repair and overhaul of equipment/weapons,
and one workshop i.e.515 ABW has been tasked with the responsibility of indigenization
and manufacture of spares. Table 1 shows the location and mandate of the eight ABWs.
Table 1: Location and Mandate of eight Army Base Workshops
Workshop Location Mandate
505 ABW Delhi Undertakes depot level repair of Tank T-72 including engines, Scania
vehicles including engines, AM-50 bridging system.
506 ABW Jabalpur Repair of small arms and mortars.
(Madhya Pradesh)
507 ABW Kankinara Repair of Scania vehicles/Kraz vehicles.
(West Bengal)
508 ABW Allahabad Repair of Tatra and Scania vehicles.
(Uttar Pradesh)
509 ABW Agra Repair and overhaul of communication systems, radars, optical including
(Uttar Pradesh) various sights and other electronic equipment and power equipment
(Generators).
510 ABW Meerut Repair and overhaul of Air Defence Weapons Systems, Soldier weapon
(Uttar Pradesh) systems, Gun & specialist vehicles& Engineering Equipments.
512 ABW Kirkee, Pune Repair and overhaul of ICV BMP II & their variants, Armoured Recovery
(Maharashtra) Vehicles and all AFV engines.
515 ABW Bengaluru Manufacture of spares (Indigenization), manufacture of simulators for
(Karnataka) field army and overhaul of aviation rotables.
1.1 Organizational Structure

Master General of Ordnance (MGO) functioning under Chief of Army Staff is responsible
for ensuring high state availability of weapons, ammunition, equipment, vehicles and stores
to the Indian Army during war and peace. MGO is assisted by Director General of Electronics
and Mechanical Engineering (DGEME), Director General of Ordnance Services (DGOS),
Additional Director General Equipment Management (ADG EM) and Additional Director
General Procurement (ADG Proc). Base Workshop Group (BWG) assists DGEME and
exercises overall control over the Army Base Workshops (ABW). BWG is responsible for
prepration of Long Range Perspective Plan, utilization of resources available with ABWs,
1
Overhaul – Is a critical activity to restore the equipment readiness and neutralize effects of age, usage.
This is carried out by stripping the complete equipment and reassembling it by changing the worn out/
damaged parts, repairing, and replacing assemblies which out lived their life.
2
Zero Hour, Zero Kilometer- Restoration of weapon system in as near to new condition by overhaul
process.
1
quality checks of overhauled equipments and allocation /redistribution of manpower within

the ABWs.
MGO functions through integrated functioning of multiple internal agencies viz.
DGEME- for capacities of workshops for loading targets, DGOS- for availability of
spares, DG Mechanized Forces and other user Directorates- for availability of repairable3
and external agencies viz. Ordnance Factory Board, Defence PSUs and other PSUs- for
ensuring spares supply for completion of targets set for overhaul and maintenance of
fleet of equipment and weapons of Indian Army. Agencies involved in overhaul and
their responsibilities are detailed in Chart 1.
Chart-1: Agencies involved in overhaul of Army Equipment and Weapons
ABWs
Overhauling
Agency
1.2 Previous Audit Reports and Ministry’s response
Review of Army Base Workshop was commented in Report No. 14 of 1992. The important
issues highlighted in the report included determination of workshop capacities with
reference to manpower alone despite progressive up-gradation of repair techniques as
well as automation in the ABWs and non-exploitation of available capacities due to non-
availability of repairable and poor backup of spares.
Ministry in its Action Taken Note (August 2000) stated that as the workshops deal with
indigenous and imported equipment and spares availability in respect of indigenous
equipment was better, as such utilization of manpower and equipment in ABWs which deal
3
Repairable- The equipment due for overhaul activity at ABW, which commences only after receipt of
equipment due for overhaul from the feeding depots.
2
with Indigenous equipment is high. Regarding working out of workshop capacities on the
basis of standard man-hours, it was brought out that it was the standard practice.
Working of ABWs was again reviewed and commented under Para No. 3.1 of Audit Report
No. 6 of 2005. The report pointed out significant under performance in achievement of
overhaul targets, overstatement of capacity utilization, non-availability of spares, delays in
overhaul, idling of manpower and delay in creation of overhaul facility. In the Action Taken
Note, Ministry stated (November 2006) that for spares management, various steps such as
holding of quarterly spares review meeting, target fixation and mid-term review meeting,
creation of special task force for monitoring overhaul commitments and regular interaction
with Ordnance Branch would be taken up.
1.3 Audit Objectives

Performance Audit of “Working of Army Base Workshops” was taken up to assess the
effectiveness of the workshops with regard to timeliness of overhaul, adequacy of
infrastructure, timely availability of spares and quality of the repair. The Performance Audit
also looked in to the status of assurances given in the Action Taken Notes on earlier reviews.
In particular, the audit reviewed;
• Whether the ABWs were able to fulfill their role economically, efficiently and
effectively?
• Whether infrastructure available at the ABWs was adequate and modernized
timely?
• Whether the spares required for the overhaul were timely provisioned by the
Depots and received in time from the supply agencies?
• Whether equipment overhauled met the laid down quality standards?
1.4 Audit Criteria

The audit criteria for the performance evaluation were derived from:
• Army Base Workshop Procedure.
• Five Year Repair Programme framed by MGOs Branch at Army Headquarters.
• Induction Pattern and Overhaul Cycle of the equipment inducted in Army.
• Instructions, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), letters issued by DG EME,
DGOS, HQ BWG.
• Action Taken Note on Report No 14 of 1992 and Para 3.1 of Audit report No 6 of
2005.
• Special Provision Review Directives, Technical Instructions, and Issue Procedure
framed by DGOS for provisioning of spares.
• Overhaul scales for spares framed by DGEME for overhaul of the equipment.
1.5 Scope of Audit

The Performance Audit covered a period of six years from 2010-11 to 2015-16. The audit
was carried out at MGO, DGEME and DGOS at New Delhi, HQ BWG at Meerut. Five
out of eight Army Base Workshops viz. 505 ABW New Delhi, 509 ABW Agra, 510 ABW
3
Meerut, 512 ABW Kirkee based on the criticality of the equipment to the Indian Army
and 515 ABW Bengaluru being the only spares manufacturing workshop were selected
for audit. The audit was also carried out at feeding Ordnance Depots (ODs) viz. CAFVD
Kirkee, COD Delhi, Agra and Dehuroad which are responsible for supply of repairables
& spares to respective ABWs & collection of overhauled equipment from ABWs and
issue the same to units as per release orders of DGOS. Audit visited three4 regiments of
Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV) BMP and two5 Brigades of Tank T-72 for user feedback on
overhauled equipment.
1.6 Audit Methodology

An Entry Conference was held with the Ministry of Defence on 14 July 2015. The objective,
scope, and methodology of audit were discussed and criteria agreed upon. Detailed audit
scrutiny was conducted during July 2015 to January 2016 at the selected ABWs and Ordnance
Depots in order to evaluate the performance against the audit criteria. Field audit included
examination of records, collection of information through issue of audit observations, replies
thereto and Questionnaire. Exit Conference chaired by MGO was held on 11 November
2016 wherein important aspects brought out in the Report were discussed.
Replies to the audit observations furnished by the MGO were considered while preparing
the report. Reply of the Ministry was awaited (November 2016).
1.7 Audit Findings

The audit findings have been categorized in three chapters viz (i) Effectiveness of Army
Base Workshops (ii) Infrastructure and Modernization and (iii) Spares Management.
1.8 Acknowledgement
We gratefully acknowledge the co-operation of officers and staff of the MGO, DGEME,
DGOS, HQ BWG, Army Base Workshops, Central Ordnance Depots and user units under
DGMF.
4
Mechanized Infantry Regiments- (i) 11 Mech. Inf. Regiment, (ii) 20 Mech. Inf. Regiment and (iii) 6
Guards
5
Armoured Regiments – (i) 16 (Independent) Armoured Brigade and (ii) 3 (Independent)
Brigade
4
Chapter II: Effectiveness of Army Base Workshops

2.0 Importance of overhaul
The Indian Army has a large inventory of weapon systems and equipment which need to be
maintained and sustained in battle worthy condition. The decision to overhaul equipment is
based on the maintenance philosophy promulgated at the time of induction for the envisaged
life cycle as enumerated in Equipment Management Policy Statement (EMPS). The targets
of overhaul to be undertaken by ABWs are decided by MGO depending on combination
of factors such as periodicity of overhaul as stated in EMPS and condition of equipment,
backlog of overhaul, capacity of ABWs and supply of spares by DGOS and various spares
supplying agencies.
2.1 Equipment profile

Indian Army holds 23 Class “A” vehicles in its inventory that includes Armoured Fighting
Vehicles (AFV), Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICV), Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARV),
Guns and Snow Vehicles. All supporting vehicles are classified as Class “B” equipment.
Considering the important features and criticality in war scenario, the following AFVs/
ICVs and ARVs along with their overhaul agencies have been covered in audit based on the
workshop selected for the performance audit as indicated in Table 2 below.
Table-2: Features of the selected Class “A” equipment and their overhauling agency
Equipment Year of Important features Overhauling Agency
Induction
Tank T-90 2002 It is the main stay of Armoured Corps. Overhaul due from 2018. Overhaul
Agency yet to be decided. Only
component level repair6 at 505
ABW decided.
MBT Arjun 2004 An indigenously developed Tank with Overhaul due from 2020. Overhaul
120 mm rifled bore gun. Critical in NBC agency yet to be decided.
war scenario.
Tank T-72 1979 It is the Main Tank of the Army. Fitted 505 ABW & Heavy Vehicle Factory
with 780 HP super charge engine and (HVF), Avadi
125mm smooth bore gun.
BMP-II 1985 It is an Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV) 512 ABW & Ordnance Factory,
with amphibious capabilities and high Medak (OFM)
degree of mobility and provides additional
safety to Infantry soldiers.
ARV WZT-3 1999 It is Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV) Consultancy contract for creation
for Tank T-72 and T-90 and its variants. of facility at 512 ABW has been
ARV VT-72B 1994 It is Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV) concluded.
for Tank T-72 and T-90 and its variants.
ARV WZT-2 1981 It is a recovery vehicle for Tank T-55 and 512 ABW
its variants
6
Component Level Repair- In this facility pool of MUAs (Major Unit Assembly) will be maintained to
replace when they become defective. This facility will be setup in the Corps Zone Workshop so that
repairs can be carried out in forward areas and Tanks put on road in serviceable state with minimum
downtime. The defective MUAs will be repaired and returned to the pool using the proposed “Component
Level Repair Facilities”. This will enable sustainment of the Tank while providing mission readiness and
reliability.
5
2.2 Maintenance Philosophy and Intervention Norms

MoD published (April 1987) maintenance philosophy for AFVs, ICVs and ARVs based on
envisaged service life of 30 years. This was applicable to all the AFVs, ICVs and ARVs in
service as well as those to be inducted in future. These norms were revised by the Army HQ
in December 2003 and again in February 2014 as shown in Table 3 below:-
Table- 3: Intervention period for maintenance of Class “A” vehicles
Intervention for main- Periodicity as per Policy of 2003 Periodicity as per Policy of 2014
tenance (whichever is earlier) (whichever is earlier)
Medium Repair (MR-1) 8-10 Years 2000-2500 KM 10 Years 2400 KM
Overhaul (OH– 1) 15-16 Years 2500-4000 KM 16 Years 3700 KM
Medium Repair (MR -2) 21-22 years 5250-5000 KM 23 years 5400 KM
Overhaul (OH – 2) ----- ----- 29 Years@ 6700 KM
Medium Repair (MR -3) 26-27 Years 6500-6750 KM 35 Years# 7900 KM
@For equipment to serve beyond 35 years. Balance equipment to undergo MR instead and de induct after 35
years
# Only for OH-2 equipment and service up to or beyond 40 years
Similarly, class ‘B’ equipment viz. Radars and DG sets are required to be overhauled
after 10 years from the date of induction. Second overhaul is due after seven years of first
overhaul. In case of Battle Field Surveillance Radar (BFSR), first overhaul is due after
seven years.
2.2.1 Maintenance Process

As per extant procedure, an ABW is to be nominated to overhaul particular equipment
at the introductory stage itself in order to facilitate long range forecasting and planning.
Every year, during overhaul target fixation meeting, targets for current production year are
reviewed, and are fixed for the next year and a roll on plan prepared for next three years.
The inputs received from ABWs, DGOS, OFB and DPSUs form the basis for revision of
targets. The overhaul process starts at ABWs with issue of AHQ repair programme and
targets are intimated to all the supply agencies for them to gear up for timely manufacturing,
provisioning and supply of spares to ABWs. After receipt of overhaul programme, workshop
issues calling in notice demanding the repairable from the feeding depots.
2.3 Backlog in overhaul of important class ‘A’ equipment

We noticed that the maintenance philosophy and intervention norms for overhaul for class
‘A’ equipment as implemented, resulted in prolonged delays and backlog in overhaul of
important class ‘A’ equipment as indicated in Table 4 below:-
6
Table 4:- Backlog of overhaul of important class ‘A’ equipment

Equipment BMP-II and IIK# ARV WZT-2 Tank-T-72#
7 8 9 10
Year a b c d a b c d a b c d
2010-11 2240 949 72 877 222 222 00 222 2418 811 98 713
2011-12 2329 928 124 804 222 222 02 220 2418 793 83 710
2012-13 2368 912 72 840 222 220 02 218 2418 789 126 663
2013-14 2412 939 121 818 222 218 02 216 2418 727 140 587
2014-15 2412 980 145 835 222 216 03 213 2418 664 160 504
2015-16 2412 892 90 802 222 213 13 200 2418 612 133 479
# Overhauled BMPs include BMPs overhauled by OF, Medak and overhauled T-72 Tank include Tanks
overhauled by Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi.
It can be seen from the Table above that, on the average, 35 per cent of the total fleet of
BMP has been due for overhaul during 2010-11 to 2015-16, which has reduced the effective
availability of the fleet for the operations. Since 512 ABW and OF Medak had together
annually overhauled only 104 BMPs on an average during this period, the possibility of
liquidating the backlog to make the entire fleet operational in near future does not look
bright.
In case of ARV WZT-2, where the entire fleet was due for overhaul in 2010, only 22 (10
per cent) of the total fleet had been overhauled during the period 2010-11 to 2015-16 and
168 were held at CAFVD, Kirkee and 512 ABW in Class V ( off-road) condition awaiting
overhaul.
Though the backlog in overhaul of Tank T-72 has been reduced from 713 in 2010-11 to 479
Tanks in 2015-16, it is still on higher side representing 20 per cent of the total population,
as T-72 is a main battle Tank of the Indian Army.
2.3.1 Backlog in overhaul of important Signal equipment

We noticed that non-observance of the maintenance philosophy and intervention norms of
the signal equipment coupled with prolonged delays resulted in backlog of its overhaul as
indicated in Table 5 below:-
Table-5: Backlog of overhaul of Signal equipment
Equipment Induction Total Total Equipment overhauled up to Backlog of
years population due for 31.03.2016 first and
held overhaul 1stover- 2nd over- Total second
haul haul over- overhaul
hauled
Radar Fly 1987 to 215 1stOH-168 138 58 196 1stOH- 30
Catcher 2008 2nd OH-77 2nd OH- 19
Radar TC 1996 to 92 1stOH-74 49 00 49 1 stOH-25
reporter 2005 2ndOH-00 2nd OH- 00
7
a- Total population
8
b- Equipment due for OH as of March each year including backlog from previous years
9
c- Overhauled during the Year.
10
d- Backlog
7
Battle Field 2001 to 252 1 stOH-201 159 00 159 1st OH- 42

Surveillance 2013
Radar
(BFSR)
Medium
Range
19 KVA DG Records not 307 1st OH-242 187 58 245 1st OH- 55
set available in 2ndOH-77 2nd OH- 19
ABW
We observed backlog in first overhaul of 18 per cent of Radar Fly Catcher, 34 per cent of
Radar TC Reporter and 21 per cent of Battle Field Surveillance Radar.
We observed that the backlog in overhaul of the equipment as discussed above was due to
the deficiencies in implementation of its maintenance philosophy and intervention norms
such as downward revision of the targets every year and delay in overhaul. These have
an adverse impact on operational readiness. The performance of each selected ABW is
commented in succeeding paragraphs.
2.4 505 Army Base Workshop (ABW), New Delhi

505 ABW undertakes the overhaul of Tank T-72 including its engines, Scania vehicles, AM-
50 bridging system. The 505 ABW obtains the repairables and handover the overhauled
equipment to Central Vehicle Depot (CVD), Delhi which is designated feeding depot for
505 ABW.
2.4.1 Non achievement of overhaul targets

Our scrutiny of minutes of Mid-term Review meetings held during the audit period revealed
that every year targets were revised. The details of targets originally assigned, subsequently
revised and achieved are indicated in Table 6 below:-
Table-6: Non-achievement of Overhaul Targets at 505 ABW
Equipment Tank T-72 Engine T-72 ColosTatra
Year O11 R12 A13 O R A O R A
2010-11 50 40 35 50 60 30 Nil 20 20
2011-12 50 50 10 100 21 07 30 20 06
2012-13 60 50 50 136 80 71 10 10 10
2013-14 50 40 30 100 80 72 10 10 10
2014-15 50 40 40 100 60 60 03 03 03
2015-16 50 50 40 100 100 100 Nil Nil Nil
As seen from the above table, there was shortfall in achieving the targets vis a vis original
targets in respect of Tank T-72 ranging from 17 to 80 per cent. In respect of Engines of
T-72, it ranged between 0 and 93 per cent. 505 ABW could not achieve the original and the
revised targets that were fixed in the Midterm Review meetings.
11
‘O’ Original Target
12
R’ Revised Target
13
‘A‘ Achievement. The overhauls completed during the year are reflected as achievement
8
MGO, in reply (May 2016) stated that delay in overhaul was mainly due to non availability
of spares by OFs and DPSUs. The contention of MGO is not plausible as the responsibility
for availability of spares also rests with MGO. Hence it was incumbent on them to make
sure that the spares authorized as per overhaul scales were made available in full range and
depth before the start of production year.
The non-availability of critical spares and production hold up items as noticed during
current review has been discussed in Para No 4.1.1 of Chapter IV.
2.4.2 Delay in overhaul

In order to effectively and efficiently manage the overhaul of various equipments, BWG
had specified norms indicating the maximum time required for the activity. We however
observed that despite the downward revision in target during the currency of the year, there
was inordinate delay in overhauling the equipment as against the stipulated timelines.
As per existing norms, the overhaul of Tank T-72 is required to be completed within 144
days. We however observed that Tank T-72 could not be overhauled in stipulated time
frame. Actual time taken for overhaul of each Tank during 2010-11 to 2013-14 exceeded the
norm of 144 days and delay ranged between two to three years. Table 7 below explains the
status of delay in overhaul during the last six years which shows the status of Tanks taken
up for overhaul during that year and time taken for their overhauling by the ABW.
Table 7: Delay in overhaul of Tank T-72
Year Eqpt. taken Overhauled Overhauled Time take for Time taken for
up for OH (No) within time overhaul (days)overhaul excluding
(No.) frame time frame
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
2010-11 54 5314 00 378 877 234 733
2011-12 29 29 00 372 980 228 836
2012-13 36 36 00 247 914 103 770
2013-14 15 15 00 456 688 312 544
2014-15 40 40 00 356 577 212 433
2015-16 50 40 00 212 408 68 264
MGO in reply stated (May 2016) that the delay in overhaul was solely due to non-availability
of spares. Contention of MGO is not plausible as the responsibility for availability of spares
also rests with MGO.
2.4.3 Delay in issue of overhauled Tank T-72 to Units

On completion of overhaul, the overhauled equipments are collected by the feeding Depots.
Thereafter, DGOS issues release orders, after consulting MGO Branch, Line Directorate
(Users) and MISO (Management Information System Organization), to feeding Depots for
issue of the overhauled equipment to concerned field units.
As per the policy on improving the quality of overhauls, the overhauled equipments are
required to be handed over to the Depots by the Workshops within seven days. After receipt
14
One tank T-72 has been declared Beyond Economic Repairs (BER)
9
of the overhauled equipment, the depots inform DGOS regarding availability of equipment
for issue of release orders. We observed that in most of the cases, the ABWs adhered to
the laid down time schedule for issue of overhauled equipments. The efficiency of the
Workshops in timely issue of the equipment was however defeated by the delays in release
and dispatch of equipment by the Ordnance Depots.
We observed that as far as release of equipment by DGOS and time frame for dispatch
of equipment by Depots to the units was concerned, no laid down Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) had been framed. As a result, there was no consistency in issue of release
orders (RO) by AHQ. In some cases, the release orders were issued even before completion
of overhaul while as in other cases RO was delayed by more than a year.
a. Delay in issue of Release Order (RO)
We observed that out of 181 overhauled Tanks, only in five cases ROs were issued
before collection of tank by CVD. ROs in 151 cases were issued within two months
and in 11 cases ranged from two months to a year. In two cases of Tanks overhauled in
2011-12, ROs are yet to be issued. Details as indicated in Table 8 below:
Table-8: Delay in issue of RO in respect of overhauled Tank T-72
Year No of Issue Orders floated by AHQ
overhauled
T-72 Tanks Prior to 0-60 61-120 121-180 181-365 366 days
collected by collection days days days days & above
CVD
2010-11 17 00 01 08 02 06 00
2011-12 33@ 02 26 03 00 00 00
2012-13 35 02 26 04 02 01 00
2013-14 28 01 23 04 00 00 00
2014-15 28 00 28 00 00 00 00
2015-16 40@ 00 27 01 00 00 00
Total- 181 5 131 20 4 7 0
@ In two cases of 2011-12 and 12 cases of 2015-16 Release orders are yet to be floated (March 2016)
Contrary to the facts, in reply, MGO stated (July 2016) that there was no delay on their part
to initiate release order, which was done within two weeks.
b. Delay in dispatch
Out of 181 overhauled Tanks collected by CVD Delhi Cantt, 23 Tanks are yet to be issued
to the units and in 78 Tanks, there was a delay ranging from two to 24 months in issue as
indicated in Table 9 below:
10
Table-9: Time taken in dispatch of overhauled Tank T-72 collected by CVD

Year No of Time taken in dispatch of overhauled T-72 collected by CVD.
overhauled Up to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 12 12 to 24 24 Months Yet
T-72 Months Months Months Months Months and above to be
collected by issued
CVD
2010-11 17 13 01 00 03 00 00
2011-12 33 19 04 03 01 04 00 2
2012-13 35 21 03 07 00 03 01 -
2013-14 28 07 01 04 07 04 05 -
2014-15 28 11 06 05 02 02 01 1
2015-16 40 09 03 04 02 01 01 20
Total 181 80 18 23 15 14 8 23
2.4.4 Quality Index of overhauled equipment and engines

The aim of overhaul of equipment is to restore the Army equipment in readiness by
neutralizing the effects of age, usage and deployment. The Technical Group EME
(TGEME) functioning under DGEME, had suggested (August 1994) a detailed procedure
for improvement in quality of overhauled equipment. The procedure necessitated thorough
inspection at various stages by inspection staff of ABWs, at critical stages by Resident
Inspectors (RI) and final inspection of the completely Overhauled equipment by RI.
HQ BWG, with an aim to improve the quality of overhauled equipment, engines and major
assemblies also issued (August 2004) a Technical Directive to measure the Quality Index (QI)
of overhauled equipment. QI is a performance indicator to evaluate the quality performance
of an overhauled equipment against specifications laid down by the manufacturers. QI will
be low if equipment is found to have defects during final testing by the Quality Control of
the BWG.
As per the directive, QI for overhauled Tank T-72 should be 95. We observed that the QI
achieved was below the limit prescribed in Technical Instruction and the equipment had
been cleared for issue to the depots despite the shortfall. The Quality Index achieved in
respect of Tank T-72 is shown in Table 10 below:
Table-10: Quality index of overhauled Tank T-72
Year Tank T-72
Minimum Maximum
2010-11 87.8 91.98
2011-12 86.51 92.44
2012-13 84.73 91.93
2013-14 90.3 92.20
2014-15 83.80 92.13
2015-16 87.25 92.2
In reply, MGO (May 2016) attributed non achievement of the target quality index to non-
availability of spares and the shortfall was made from reclamation and self-manufacture of
spares. The reply was suggestive of the fact that purpose of overhaul to achieve ‘Zero Hour
Zero Kilometer’ status could not be achieved.
11
2.4.5 Issue of overhauled equipment without testing

We observed that due to non availability of certain vital test facilities, the overhauled
equipment were issued to the units without testing as detailed below:-
i. Issue of over hauled Tank T-72 without test firing
The ABW lacks test firing facility for T-72 Tanks. However, MGO Branch had accorded
special sanction to roll out the Tanks without test firing on the condition that activity would
be carried out during initial firing of the affected units.
ii. Vital deficiency of Special Machine Tools (SMTs), Special Tools Equipment
(STEs) and Tools/Jigs (TJs)
We observed that the ABW was deficient in Special Machine Tools/Special Test Equipment/
Tools Jigs like universal gun pull back apparatus, composite ring required for Quality Checks
(QC) on the Gun portion of T-72, Multipurpose sling device for carrying out quality checks
on auto portion of T-72, Eye bolt for mounting and dismounting gear box and Guard disc
for installation and removal of road wheels without disconnecting the tracks. The deficiency
of vital SMTs/STEs/TJs was reported since 2011-12.
2.5 512 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Kirkee

The 512 ABW is assigned the task of repair and overhaul of BMP II & their variants, ARVs
and engines pertaining to BMPs (UTD-20 Engine). The ABW obtains the repairables and
handover the overhauled vehicles to CAFVD which is the designated feeding depot for 512
ABW.
2.5.1 Non achievement of overhaul targets

512 ABW also could not achieve the original and revised targets that were fixed in the Mid-
term Review meetings. Details of targets originally assigned, subsequently revised and
achieved as indicated below in Table 11:
Table- 11: Non-achievement of Overhaul Targets at 512 ABW
Equipment BMP II/IIK ARV WZT-2 UTD- 20 Engines
Year O R A O R A O R A
2010-11 120 46 46 10 4 Nil 150 135 135
2011-12 100 85 85 10 2 2 150 110 110
2012-13 116 + 4 96 85 2 2 2 150 50 41

(IIK)
2013-14 114 + 120 102 + 2 2 2 Nil 150 150 115
6 IIK (IIK)
2014-15 145 + 5 96 + 9 97 + 9 2 10 03 150 135 147
(IIK) (IIK) (IIK)
2015-16 150 150 70 20 13 13 150 150 150
12
As seen from the above table, there was shortfall in achieving the targets vis a vis original
targets in respect of BMP ranging from 13 to 62 per cent, in respect of ARV WZT-2 ranging
from 0 to 100 per cent and in respect of UTD-20 engines, it ranged between 0 to 73 per
cent.
512 ABW while agreeing with the audit findings stated (July 2015) that failure to supply
repairable or spares in time as per requirement led to non-achievement of laid down targets
and consequent downward revision. They further stated that 110 overhauled BMPs were held
by them due to non-availability of certain critical spares/assemblies, for which deviation15
sanctions were awaited.
Thus despite assurance by the Ministry in 2005 to improve the availability of spares,
ABWs did not get sufficient spares to meet their overhaul targets leading to backlog and
consequently impacting operational readiness. However, as far as availability of repairable
was concerned, we found that 512 ABW was holding more BMPs than the target assigned
to them, hence non availability of repairable cannot be a reason for non-achievement of
targets.
2.5.2 Delay in overhaul

As per existing norms, the overhaul of BMP vehicle is required to be completed within a
timeframe of 153 days. For overhaul of an Engine in ideal conditions, 512 ABW had set a
time frame of one month.
We however observed that BMP and engines could not be overhauled in stipulated time
frame. During the period under review, the time taken for the overhaul of BMP ranged up to
1512 days. Hence not only was the availability of the equipment denied by such delay, even
the effective life (13 per cent) of the equipment was also lost due to the hold up. Similarly,
average time taken for overhaul of each UTD-20 engine for BMP was 308 days which was
10 times of the stipulated time frame of 30 days. Table 12 below indicates the status of
delay in overhaul during the last six years.
Table 12: Delay in overhaul
Year Equipment Eqpt. Over Over Time taken for Time taken for
taken up hauled hauled overhaul overhaul excluding
for OH (No) within time ( days) time frame
(No.) frame Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
2010-11 BMP 73 73 00 243 1512 90 1359
UTD engine 130 130 00 167 799 137 769
2011-12 BMP 53 53 00 324 1154 171 1001
UTD engine 116 116 00 209 829 179 799
2012-13 BMP 79 79 00 737 962 584 808
UTD engine 56 56 00 257 693 227 663
2013-14 BMP 113 113 00 502 618 349 465
UTD engine 61 61 00 88 521 58 491
2014-15 BMP 56 36# 00 333 616 180 463
UTD engine 78 68 00 406 152 376 122
2015-16 BMP 96 00# 00 - - - -
UTD engine 156 66 00 310 74 280 44
# Twenty BMPs taken for overhaul in the year 2014-15 and all the BMPs taken for overhaul in the year 2015-
16 were pending for overhaul as of 31 March 2016.
15
Deviation Sanctions- Deviation means deviating from the standard norms prescribed for overhaul of a
particular equipment i.e. Fitment items not fitted, not carrying out all the tests, use of retrieved material etc.
These sanctions are accorded by MGO in consultation with line directorates.
13
MGO in reply stated (May 2016) that the ideal through put time was based on the premise
that spares authorized as per overhaul scale were placed before the start of the Production
year. Delay in overhaul was solely due to non-availability of spares.
2.5.3 Delay in issue of overhauled equipment to Units

Delay caused due to late issue of RO and delayed dispatch by CAFVD, Kirkee is analysed
as follows:
(a) Delay in issue of release order (RO):
Delay in issue of RO by DGOS in respect of 102 out of 499 BMPs overhauled by 512 ABW
and collected by CAFVD during the period under review ranged from two months to more
than a year, as indicated in Table 13 below:
Table-13: Delay in issue of RO in respect of overhauled BMPs
Year No of Release Orders issued by AHQ
overhauled
BMPs Prior to 0-60 days 61-120 121-180 181-365 366 days &
collected by collection days days days above
CAFVD
2010-11 110 47 09 15 19 18 02
2011-12 51 45 - - - - 06
2012-13 54 38 09 02 03 02 -
2013-14 24 09 08 02 - 05 -
2014-15 77 40 35 - 01 01 -
2015-16 @ 183 09 99 16 10 - -
Total- 499 188 160 35 33 26 08
@ Release orders in respect of 49 BMPs are yet to be floated as of March 2016
In reply, MGO stated (July 2016) that there was no delay on their part to initiate release
order, which was done within two weeks of receiving the list of available BMPs from
CAFVD Kirkee.The reply is suggestive of the fact that delay has occurred at the level of
CAFVD, Kirkee, which is a part of Ordnance Branch, functioning under MGO. Hence
shifting of responsibility to the Depot was not in order.
(b) Delay in dispatch
Besides the delay in issue of release orders by DGOS, there was a further delay in dispatch
of BMPs by CAFVD to units/formations even after the issue of release orders by AHQ as
indicated in Table 14 below:
14
Table-14: Time taken in dispatch of overhauled BMPs collected by CAFVD

Year No of Time taken in dispatch of overhauled BMPs collected by CAFVD
overhauled 0-60 days 61-120 121-180 181-365 366-730 More than
BMPs collected days days days days 730 days.
by CAFVD
2010-11 110 06 46 27 29 01 01
2011-12 51 15 08 01 02 22 03
2012-13 54 09 10 10 13 12 -
2013-14 24 - - 04 - 20 -
2014-15 77 12 40 18 07 - -
2015-16 183 65 33 03 - - -
Total 499 107 137 63 51 55 04
Note- 82 BMPs were yet to be issued as of March 2016
We observed that in 12 per cent cases (i.e. 51 out of 417), there was delay of more than six
months to a year and in 14 per cent cases (i.e. 59 out of 417) the delay was more than one
year (Maximum delay 1796 days), in dispatch of overhauled BMPs to concerned units after
the receipt of the ROs from Army HQ.
2.5.4 Quality of overhauled BMPs

We observed that overhauled BMPs issued to users were also low in Quality Index due to
use of poor quality material and poor workmanship. Even the ABW lacked adequate testing
facilities as brought out below:-
(i) Low Quality Index

As per the directive, QI for overhauled BMP should be 95. We observed that the QI achieved
was far below the limit prescribed in Technical Instruction and the equipment had been
cleared for issue to the depots despite the shortfall. The quality Index achieved for BMP is
shown in Table 15 below:
Table-15: Quality index of overhauled equipment.
Year BMP
Minimum Maximum
2010-11 31.44 65.83
2011-12 60.65 70.04
2012-13 57.10 75.37
2013-14* - -
2014-15 58.40 71.84
2015-16 70.28 77.40
*Inspection was not carried out by QA wing of BWG during the period.
We observed that defects were recurring over the years and the numbers of defects in the
major sub systems of BMP showed increased trend. For the Automotive Portion while the
types of defects were only 10 in 2010-11, the same increased to 126 in 2014-15. Similarly
there was an increase in the type of defects in Armament Portion, Instrument Portion, TCM
portion and Electric Portion by 480 to 1017 per cent. System wise defects during the last
six years are summarized in Table 16 below:-
15
Table-16: Defect frequency of overhauled equipment

Year Automotive Portion Armament Instrument TCM portion Electric Portion
Portion portion
Type of Total Type of Total Type of Total Type Total Type Total
defects No. of defects No. of defects No. of of No. of of No. of
defects defects defects defects defects defects defects
July 2010- June 2011 10 NA 4 NA 5 NA 6 NA 4 NA
July 2011- June 2012( 19 419 4 87 21 537 8 123 8 157
July 2012- June 2013 35 836 8 180 41 1481 38 553 7 56
July 2013- June 2014 88 2945 19 273 14 284 21 483 27 187
July 2014-June 2015 126 3081 34 630 24 429 61 787 31 384
July 2015 –March 2016 NA 6334 NA 1769 NA 1913 NA 2645 NA 1236
NA= Not Available
In reply, MGO (May 2016) attributed low quality index to non-availability of spares and
the shortfall was made from reclamation and self manufacture of spares.The reply was
suggestive of the fact that purpose of overhaul to achieve ‘Zero Hour Zero Kilometer’
status was not achieved and the equipment were issued with compromised quality.
(ii) Issue of overhauled equipment without testing

We observed that due to non availability of certain vital test facilities at 512 ABW, the
overhauled equipment were issued to the units without testing as detailed below:-
A. Ad-hoc testing of amphibious capabilities of overhauled BMPs
The counter weight of Hull is required for dip testing and checking the amphibious
capabilities of overhauled BMP.This test is a pre requisite as per OEM
recommendations.
We observed that in the absence of counter weight of Hull, test was carried out by making
workers stand on the hull being tested.
In reply, MGO stated (May 2016) that the amphibious testing of overhauled BMPs is
full proof. They further stated that in absence of counter weight as per dimensions given
by OEM the equivalent weight is put on BMP under test to ascertain perfect floatation.
However the fact remains that the mandatory test is being carried out without proper test
facility as per the recommendation of the OEM.
B. Issue of BMPs without test firing
Due to lack of test firing facility and ammunition at 512 ABW, overhauled BMPs were
issued without proof firing. The case has been discussed in the Paragraph 3.4 of Chapter
III.
In reply MGO stated (May 2016) that teams from the ABW were associated during test
firing at user firing ranges, hence 100 per cent proof firing was being done. The reply
is not tenable as the equipment should have been issued to user units after complete
testing.
16
C. Vital deficiency of Special Machine Tools (SMTs), Special Tools Equipment

(STEs) and Tools/Jigs (TJs)
We observed that the ABW was deficient in Special Machine Tools/Special Test Equipment/
Test Jigs like universal gun pull back apparatus, Eye bolt for mounting and dismounting
gear box and Guard disc for installation and removal of road wheels without disconnecting
the tracks. The deficiency of vital SMTs/STEs/TJs was reported since 2011-12.
In reply HQ BWG stated (September 2015) that the digital tools were demanded to enhance
efficiency and save time but these had not been received yet. In the absence of digital test
equipment, QA/QC checking was done with conventional instruments.
The reply that QA/QC check was being done with conventional methods was indicative of
the fact that the QA/QC checking in the absence of these test equipment was not only time
consuming but also less efficient. This also has an impact on quality of overhaul.
(iii) Feedback of overhauled equipment from the Users

HQ BWG (January 2005) issued Technical Directive for obtaining feedback report on
equipment overhauled by ABWs within six months after equipment reached the user. The
feedback report has to rate the overhauled equipment in three categories viz. Excellent,
Good and Satisfactory.
We observed that feedback reports on the quality of work carried out by ABW in overhaul
consisted of barrel spring broken during firing, oil pump leaking, fly wheel leaking, deficient
tools and accessories, unsatisfactory night vision etc. Non-supply of vital equipment like
gun, vision sights, maintenance kits etc. with overhauled BMPs did not serve the purpose
of ‘Zero Hour Zero Kilometers’. Despite these shortcomings we observed that out of 295
feedback reports received during the period under review, 16 were graded as ‘Excellent’,
132 ‘Good’ and 147 ‘Satisfactory’.
In reply MGO stated (May 2016) that the user perceives overhauled equipment as either
‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ for war and accordingly writes only good or satisfactory. Hence co-relation to
overhaul performance in conjunction with categorization by users has no relevance. Reply
is not tenable as ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ are not the criteria on which quality of overhaul is assessed
under feedback. The deficiency in supply of vital equipment coupled with the fact that only
five per cent of the overhaul was termed “excellent” is a comment on the quality of the
overhaul.
2.6 509 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Agra

509 ABW is responsible for repair and overhaul of communication systems, radars and
other electronic equipment including diesel generators. User units directly deposit their
equipment due for overhaul and collect the same after overhaul from the ABW.
The details of targets originally assigned, subsequently revised and achieved in overhaul of
signal equipment are indicated below in Table-17:
17
Table17:- Non-achievement of Overhaul Targets for signal equipment

Equipment Rdr Fly Catcher Rdr TC Reporter BFSR (MR) Gen set 30 KVA
Year O R A O R A O R A O R A
2010-11 12 12 12 5 5 5 25 25 25 55 55 55
2011-12 24 18 18 10 5 5 25 19 19 65 44 44
2012-13 24 18 18 15 08 08 25 20 20 65 32 32
2013-14 24 12 12 15 07 07 25 25 25 30 24 24
2014-15 24 12 12 15 06 06 25 25 25 65 25 25
2015-16 30 30 24 15 15 14 - - - 55 55 40
As seen from the above table, there were shortfalls in achieving the targets vis a vis original
targets up to 50 per cent in respect of Radar Fly Catcher, up to 60 per cent in respect of
Radar TC Reporter and 62 per cent in respect of Gen Set 30 KVA. In case of BFSR (MR)
there was marginal shortfall during 2011-13.
MGO in reply stated (May 2016) that the targets could not be achieved due to non- availability
of spares from Ordnance Factories/ DPSUs and slow pace of indigenization. The other
reasons for non-achievement of the targets was non-availability of repairable as equipment
due for overhaul cannot be de-inducted at the same time from the operational area due to
operational reasons. However, the fact remains that a major component of critical signal
and surveillance equipment are yet to be overhauled thereby compromising communication
and surveillance activities.
2.6.1 Delay in overhaul of Signal equipments

Time-frames for overhaul of radars / generator sets were also prefixed. We, however,
observed that time taken for overhaul of these equipments during the review period has
invariably exceeded the laid down time-frame. Out of 381 signal equipment overhauled
during the six years, only nine equipments were overhauled in time. The delay ranged up
to 921 days in case of Flycatcher radar. Delay in overhaul of these equipments during the
period under review is indicated in Table 18 below:
Table-18: Delay in overhaul of equipment at 509 ABW
Equipment Eqpt Time for Equipment overhauled Maximum Average
Over- overhaul Within the within Between 201 time time
hauled as per prescribed 100 101 to days taken for taken for
(Nos.) norms time limit days 200 days and overhaul overhaul
(in days) above (in days) (in days)
Radar 96 70 09 13 40 34 921 200
Flycatcher
TC Reporter 45 70 00 01 09 35 467 314
BFSR (MR) 109 07 00 39 44 26 664 146
Gen Set 30 131 21 00 12 45 74 544 241
KVA
Total 381 - 9 65 138 169 - -
18
2.6.2 Delay in dispatch of signal equipments to the units

We observed that following equipment overhauled during 2010-11 to 2015-16 by 509 ABW
were not issued (March 2016) to the user unit due to non-reporting of collection parties
from units. The equipments were still held in the Workshop. Year wise details of such
equipment are shown in Table 19 below:
Table-19: Overhauled equipment yet to be collected by units
Year Type of equipment Total Equipment
Telecom Instruments Radar Power
2010-11 01 01 - - 02
2011-12 - - 05 - 05
2012-13 04 - 35 01 40
2013-14 09 20 09 03 41
2014-15 27 65 24 - 116
2015-16 - - 10 16 26
2.7 510 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Meerut

510 ABW undertakes overhaul of various engineering equipment and specialist vehicles.
The details of targets originally assigned, subsequently revised and achieved in overhaul of
the equipment are indicated in Table-20 below:
Table-20: Status of Achievement of Overhaul Targets
Eqpt Fagot/ Konkur Flame launcher Zil 131 KolosTatra HRV AV 15
I&II
Year O R A O R A O R A O R A O R A
2010-11 300 200 200 25 25 25 35 38 38 80 50 52 - - -
2011-12 225 225 250 50 50 50 40 40 37 50 50 50 - 1 1
2012-13 250 250 250 100 65 66 40 42 42 60 60 60 5 5 5
2013-14 350 320 306 100 85 107 45 35 32 50 50 52 10 10 8
2014-15 380 380 380 70 70 71 40 38 38 20 25 27 10 9 1
2015-16 380 380 380 70 77 77 25 25 27 30 30 30 15 15 15
As seen from the above table, 510 ABW had generally achieved the targets of overhaul
except for Fagot/ Konkur in 2013-14, Zil 131 in 2011-12 & 2013-14 and HRV AV 15 in
2013-14 & 2014-15.
2.7.1 Non-Formulation of overhaul policy for Class “B” vehicles - Scania, Tatra
and Kraz
MoD in Action Taken Note on Report No. 14 of 1992 on “Review of Army Base Workshops”
had stated that an Equipment Management Policy Statement is issued by the MGO’s
branch in consultation with Users, Ordnance and EME directorate before an equipment is
inducted.
19
We however, observed that no overhaul policy for Scania, Kraz-255B/B1 and Tatra T-815
was available with HQ BWG and the concerned workshops. Presently, Base workshops are
accepting these vehicles of eight years vintage and above for overhaul as per the direction
of EME Directorate.
2.8 515 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Bengaluru

The primary role of 515 ABW is to undertake manufacture and indigenization of spares
for various equipments held by Indian Army. Besides, the workshop also manufactures
simulators for field army and overhaul of aviation rotables.
We analyzed the performance of the workshop to assess its effectiveness with reference to
the role assigned and found that the workshop had not commenced the overhaul of aviation
rotables. Further, the workshop was not able to adhere to the time schedule allotted for
manufacture of spares. Our findings are discussed below.
2.8.1 Non-commencement of overhaul of aviation rotables

The overhaul of rotables of Chetak and Cheetah Helicopters in the Indian Army was being
undertaken by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. In order to meet the future engineering support
requirements, the ABW was assigned the responsibility to undertake the overhaul of
aviation rotables by AHQ in 2005. We observed that MoD, in June 2011 accorded sanction
for overhaul of 99 rotables. The target was subsequently reduced to 23 by MGO (Avn) in
December 2014.
MoD in December 2006 sanctioned Civil Works for a Repair Shed at an estimated cost of
` 1.94 crore, later revised to ` 3.20 crore in April 2008. Construction of the Repair Shed
was completed in April 2010.The ABW during the period September 2005 and October
2014 procured 76 Plant, Machinery and Special Equipments (PMSE) out of which cost of
56 PMSEs was ` 48.96 lakh. 47 personnel were also posted for the purpose of overhaul.
However, no overhaul could commence (December 2015) as the ABW had not been put on
the dependency list of Central Aviation Supply Depot (CASD) by MGO (Avn) for supply
of rotables and spares for overhaul.
In reply to our query as to why overhaul of rotables was not commenced, it was informed
(December 2015) that DGOS had expressed reservations to MGO (Avn) about repair and
overhaul of rotables at the ABW, stating that presently HAL was providing comprehensive
repair and overhaul facilities to meet urgent requirements and HAL located at the same
station was able to meet the targets.
MGO stated (May 2016) that overhaul activities for 13 of 23 rotables has been commenced
from the production year 2016-17. As an overhaul facility was already available at HAL
and as only 23 out of 118 rotables will be overhauled, creation of infrastructure at a cost of
` 3.69 crore at 515 ABW was un-warranted.
20
2.8.2 Inordinate delay in execution of Work Orders

The Work Orders (WOs) for manufacture of spares are prioritized in three categories based
on the urgency projected by the indentor as shown below in Table 21:
Table-21: Classification of Work Orders
Category Period of completion
Operational Immediate (OPI) To be completed within 12 months.
Priority (PTY) To be completed within 24 months
Routine (RUT) To be completed within 36 months
We observed that only 27 per cent work orders of ‘OPI’ category placed on the ABW by
Ordnance Depots were completed within the time frame. In certain cases, the time taken
was up to 93 months defeating the very purpose of processing under OPI category. In
respect of ‘Priority’ and ‘Routine’ work orders, the percentage of completion within time
frame was 65 per cent and 90 per cent respectively as indicated in Table 22 below:-
Table-22: Time taken for manufacture of spares.
OPI Category
Year Total number of Within One One to Two years Two years Maximum period
WO completed year and above in months
2010-11 258 151 73 34 66 Months
2011-12 353 116 183 54 86 Months
2012-13 167 29 61 77 65 Months
2013-14 252 67 56 129 76 Months
2014-15 210 11 49 150 93 Months
2015-16 180 11 09 160 84 Months
Total 1420 385 431 604
PTY Category
Year Total number of Within Two Two to Three Three years Maximum period
WO completed years years and above in months
2010-11 175 136 29 10 47 Months
2011-12 167 112 36 19 57 Months
2012-13 149 109 18 22 75 Months
2013-14 238 163 12 63 79 Months
2014-15 217 119 26 72 80 Months
2015-16 155 78 30 47 79 Months
Total 1101 717 151 233
RUT Category
Year Total number of Within Three Three to Four Four years Maximum period
WO completed year years and above in months
2010-11 295 290 04 01 51 Months
2011-12 278 269 07 02 57 Months
2012-13 360 333 26 01 49 Months
2013-14 412 348 17 47 60 Months
2014-15 471 403 38 30 93 Months
2015-16 529 456 59 14 72 Months
Total 2345 2099 151 95
21
From the above Table, it could be seen that maximum delay was in OPI category and the
number of WOs completed within the time frame was decreasing over the years. Most of
these WOs were placed on the ABW by various Ordnance depots for manufacture of spares
required for overhaul of equipment.
We further observed that as of March 2016, 1348 Work orders were pending as against 1707
pending for execution as on 1 April 2010. Age-wise analysis of the outstanding work orders
revealed that oldest outstanding work orders were of 2007-08.
MGO in reply (May 2016) attributed the delay in manufacture not only to non-receipt of
samples, drawings and delay in procurement of material but also to delay in material testing
and production failures.
Notwithstanding the reasons cited by the MGO, the fact of the matter is that delayed
manufacturing is affecting the availability of spares required for overhaul. As the ABW
was tasked with indigenization and manufacture of spares, it should have put a mechanism
in place to tide over these constraints. Further, the workshop is fully equipped with drawing
section and efforts should have been made to utilize the available facility. The testing
infrastructure should have been created over the years.
2.8.3 Non-monitoring of Defect reports

515 ABW receives reports on manufacturing defects in respect of stores manufactured and
issued by them. We however observed that documents related to the defect reports, their
monitoring and replacement of defective stores were not maintained by ABW.
In reply MGO stated (May 2016) that it is possible that units/ Wksp /Depots had not raised
the defect reports as spares get dissipated in the environment. It was further stated that they
would be asked to raise defect reports in future and monitoring mechanism has been put in
place at the ABW.
In the absence of any existing mechanism to monitor defects at the 515 ABW, no corrective
steps could be taken to avoid recurrence of such defects.
2.9 Non-existence of Cost Accounting system

As per Ministry’s Guidelines (March 1994) the cost of overhaul of vehicle and engine was
not to exceed 30 per cent of the cost of new vehicle/engine. This was to be ensured by MGOs
Branch/ DGEME. We noticed that at ABWs cost accounting system was not implemented.
Hence cost effectiveness of overhaul process at ABWs could not be verified.
In reply MGO stated (May 2016) that the cost accounting procedure in ABW was introduced
in 1995 to calculate cost of overhaul of equipment by taking into account the cost of labour
and spares only. However the system was not fully implemented due to its limitation of
not being able to consider other elements of cost viz MES assets and allied services being
vintage. MGO brought out some of the inadequacies in the cost accounting system viz. no
22
access to the cost of all the spares provisioned through ordnance and assessment of cost of
building.
The reply confirms the fact that Ministry’s instructions of cost control are yet to be
implemented and in the absence of this, efficiency and economy of ABWs cannot be
ascertained. The point assumes significance in light of the fact that the initially assigned
targets to the ABWs were with reference to designed capacity and these targets were
invariably reduced every year. The designed capacity in turn is worked out with reference
to Manpower posted to the ABWs. Since the expenditure on manpower is obligatory and the
designed capacity of the ABWs remains underutilized, this is bound to result in increased
cost of overhauls.
Conclusion:
Inordinate time taken for overhaul, reduction in targets due to lack of adequate spares
and delay & non-creation of timely infrastructure for the overhaul had adversely affected
the maintenance of the equipment. Consequently, there was a huge backlog of equipment
for overhaul impacting the operational preparedness of the Army. The delayed overhaul,
compounded by delay in issue of release orders and dispatch of the overhauled equipment
to the unit was not desirable as a substantial part of the serviceable life of the equipment
was spent in workshop/depots. One of the workshops, whose primary role was to undertake
manufacture and indigenization of spares to meet the requirement of overhaul and
maintenance of other ABWs and field Army had failed to meet its mandate as considerable
delay was noticed in the manufacture/indigenization of spares under “OPI” category.
Quality Index of overhauled equipment was far below the prescribed norm due to poor
workmanship and poor quality of material used. Due to lack of critical test facilities and test
equipments, overhauled equipment was issued to user units without carrying out mandatory
tests.
Recommendations:
1. Ministry should ensure strict implementation of the Maintenance Philosophy and
intervention norms formulated at the time of induction of equipment and establish a
monitoring & co-ordination mechanism at higher level by involving Department of
Defence Production and the AHQ to remove the bottlenecks of timely availability
of spares and the repairables.
2. In the absence of a policy on overhaul of Class ‘B’ vehicles in Army, these vehicles
are overhauled by the workshops on case to case basis. Ministry may formulate the
overhaul policy for Class ‘B’ vehicles.
3. Timeframe for issue of release orders by DGOS and dispatch of the overhauled
equipment by the Depot should be prescribed.
4. Cost accounting system should be introduced in the workshop to ensure optimum
utilization of resources viz. man-power, machines and materials and to assess the
cost of overhaul.
5. OEM prescribed test facility should be installed at the time of setting up of
infrastructure for overhaul. Since the release of T-72 Tanks and BMPs overhauled
23
by workshops to units without certain vital test such as proof firing and dip testing
have serious operational and quality implications, facilities for these testing must be
created at the concerned workshops.
6. Quality Index of overhauled BMPs despite improvement during 2015-16 still
remains low and needs to be further improved.
24
Chapter III: Infrastructure and Modernization

3.0 Necessity for Modernization of Infrastructure and Technology
Over the years, there had been changes in the weapons and equipment profile of Army
with entry of new technology and state-of-the-art equipment. The ABWs were required to
upgrade skills with modernization of infrastructure and technology to keep pace with the
technology transition.
3.1 Non-Preparation of Long Range Perspective Plan

As per the ABW Procedure, the HQ BWG, Meerut is required to prepare a Long Range
Perspective Plan (PP) covering period of 20 years. The PP forms basis of planning at the
ABWs taking into consideration facilities available, manpower, and equipment to be inducted
or already inducted in the Army. Further, ABWs are required to prepare modernization plan
by incorporating modern technologies and timely replacement of vintage machinery as per
PP.
We observed that no PP was prepared by HQ BWG. Absence of long term planning had
resulted in slow creation of overhaul facilities leading to backlogs in overhaul of major
equipment as discussed in Para 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
In reply MGO (May 2016) stated that a perspective plan for 15 years was promulgated in
October 2010, however, due to changes perceived in the induction and sustenance of the
weapon systems, a fresh Perspective Plan for 15 years had been forwarded to MGOs Branch
for approval. The reply is contradictory to the response given to audit in October 2015,
where in HQ BWG had stated that only repair programme for five years were prepared.
3.2 Inordinate delay in creation of Overhaul facilities

We observed lack of synchronization in creation of overhaul facilities and induction of new
equipment. In case of ARV WZT-2 the facility was created at the time of phasing out of
equipment from the service whereas for ARV VT-72-B creation of facility was delayed to
the extent of 20 years from induction. Though MBT Arjun is due for overhaul from 2020-
21 and Tank T-90 from 2018-19 onwards, the agency for overhaul is yet to be nominated.
Details of such cases are shown in Table 23 below:
Table-23: Status of overhaul facilities
Equipment Year of Due for Overhaul facility Remarks
Introduction overhaul created in
ARV WZT-2 1981-1988 1996-97 Created in 2009 Facility created only three years prior
to the period of de-induction as per
equipment management policy.
ARV VT 72 B 1994-2003 2009-10 Not yet created Consultancy contract for preparation
of DPR for Overhaul facility has been
ARV WZT-3 2001-2007 2016-17 Not yet created completed and submitted for approval to
Ministry
Tank T-90 2002- 2018 -19 Not yet created -
MBT Arjun 2004 2020 -21 Not yet created. -
25
3.2.1 Creation of overhaul facility two years prior to completion of de-induction

leading to unfruitful expenditure of ` 73.43 crore
Mention was made in Para 3.1.5 of Report No.6 of 2005 regarding lack of repair technology/
facility for the ARV WZT-2 (Armoured Recovery Vehicle for Tank T-55) inducted during
the period 1981-82 to 1987-88. Ministry, in its Action Taken Note, stated (November 2006)
that Transfer of Technology (ToT) for establishing overhaul facility ex-Poland for ARV
WZT-2 was under progress since 1998 and overhaul of equipment was scheduled w.e.f.
2006-07. Notwithstanding the assurance, we observed that the pilot overhaul of only two
ARVs was completed by August 2009 after procurement of required plant, machinery and
spares with ToT for the overhaul at a cost of ` 73.43 crore.
After completion of pilot overhaul, 512 ABW overhauled only 22 ARV WZT-2 as of March
2016 against the total strength of 222 indicating tardy progress of overhaul. None of the
remaining vehicles could be overhauled during its prescribed life as ARV WZT-2 along
with Tank T-55 was likely to be de-inducted by 2018.
In reply MGO stated (May 2016) that the case for overhaul was initiated by 512 ABW in
1998 but was sanctioned by MoD in 2007. It was further stated that overhaul of the balance
fleet would get completed by the year 2019-20.
Notwithstanding the reply, the fact remains that OH facility for ARV WZT-2 were created
only two years prior to due period for de-induction as per the policy. Thus, creation of
facility at a cost of ` 73.43 crore under the project was ill planned and the expenditure was
unfruitful as by the time the contract for creation of overhaul facility was concluded, the
equipment had already exhausted its utility.
3.2.2 Non creation of overhaul facilities for ARV VT-72 B and WZT-3
The ARV VT-72 B is a recovery vehicle for Tank T-72. A total of 156 ARVs were procured
from M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) and inducted into service during the period
1994-2003. As per maintenance philosophy and intervention norms, 129 vehicles inducted
up to 2001 were due for overhaul during 2010-15.
We observed that even after 20 years of the induction of the vehicle, no overhaul facility
had been created.
Similarly ARV WZT-3 is a recovery vehicle of latest technology available in Indian Army
for Tank T-72. During the years 2001-07, 352 ARV WZT-3 were inducted into service
through Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML). The equipment were due for overhaul from
2016-17 onwards. However, facility for overhaul has not yet been created.
As stated by MGO, owing to geo-political changes in Czechoslovakia (OEM’s Country)

during 2001-03, neither OEM nor any other company was ready/capable to overhaul ARV
VT-72B. In case of ARV WZT-3, though BEML had signed agreement with the OEM i.e.
M/s Bumar, Poland for transfer of technology (ToT) in 1999, it did not undertake the ToT
26
for maintenance and therefore could not establish infrastructure for overhaul. Only when
the OEM (Cenzine, a Polish firm) offered to set up overhaul facility for both the ARVs in
2010, Request for Proposal (RFP) for preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for
establishment of overhaul facility for ARV WZT-3 at 512 ABW was issued in November
2011. Consequently MoD, in September 2013, concluded a consultancy contract with the
OEM for preparing DPR for establishment of overhaul facility at a cost of ` 8.36 crore
(US $ 1,356,202). The firm submitted DPR in June 2015, which was under consideration at
Army HQ (March 2016).
Thus, even after 20 years of the induction of ARV-VT 72B and 15 years of ARV WZT-3, no
overhaul facility could be created. As a result 35 per cent of the ARV-VT 72B in the field
Army were off road and non-functional for want of critical spares and mission reliability of
the remaining fleet was 50 per cent only. Further, ARV WZT-3 due for overhaul from 2016-
17 onwards would not be overhauled till the facility for the overhaul is created.
3.2.3 D
elay in creation of infrastructure for Component Level Repair (CLR) for
Tank T-90s
A total of 310 T-90 Tanks were initially imported from Russia through a contract signed
with the OEM i.e. M/s Rosoboronexport (ROE) in February 2001 and inducted into service
during 2001-05. While finalising the contract, some aspects of maintainability of the
equipment could not be formalised. As a result a protocol was signed in September 2000
wherein OEM had confirmed that technical documents for Component Level Repair (CLR)
of T-90 would be offered by them through a separate contract, negotiation for which would
be conducted in six months after signing the main contract for import of the Tanks. Thus
the negotiation for CLR should have commenced in August 2001.
We, however, observed that case for Component Level Repair was initiated only in 2004
and the sanction was accorded by MoD in August 2006 at estimated cost of ` 287 crore.
Processing of the case was further delayed and the contract was concluded with the OEM
in September 2014 at a total cost of ` 1896 crore with PDC of October 2017.
We found that the first Medium Repair (MR) of T-90s became due in 2011-12 and 75
Tanks were off-road for want of various assemblies. In reply, MGO stated (May 2016) that
contract of 2001 did not stipulate the date by which proposal for CLR was to be submitted
by the Russian firm. This had resulted in delay in initiation of CLR project and the cost
escalation. As regards unserviceable assemblies held for repairs, it was stated that case for
procurement of 310 Medium Repair kits was under progress in MoD. The repair would
commence on availability of spares that are scheduled from October 2016.
The reply is not acceptable as the protocol signed in September 2000 had provision for
conducting a separate contract for ESP in six months after signing of the main contract.
The inordinate delay in finalizing the contract for CLR not only resulted in huge escalation
in the cost but also affected the operational preparedness of the Army due to holding of
unserviceable equipment.
27
3.2.4 Lack of facilities for repair/overhaul of MBT Arjun
MBT Arjun was developed by Combat Vehicle Research & Development Establishment
(CVRDE) and was manufactured at HVF, Avadi. A total of 124 numbers of Tanks were
inducted into the Army from 2004-05 onwards. The Tank is due for overhaul from 2020-
21. At the time of induction, 69 per cent components were imported. These two agencies
(CVRDE and HVF) were responsible for providing the components required to sustain the
fleet during its life cycle through indigenization or import. However, owing to the failure of
CVRDE in indigenizing the required components, HVF could not supply any spares. In the
absence of spare support MBT Arjun was not being operational since 2013. MOD in April
2015 directed that DRDO should make 20 tanks with 90% operationally able by August
2015 and nominated a committee for the same. The committee was also directed to work
out an SOP for long term sustenance of Arjun Tank.
Regarding present status on the above, MGO stated (May 2016) that nomination of HVF,
Avadi for overhaul had been proposed to MoD in October 2015.
3.3 Non- implementation of Project Tulip even after thirteen years of sanction
MoD in January 2003 sanctioned Project Tulip for establishment of additional facilities at
512 ABW as a nucleus for repairs/overhaul of communication and night vision devices for
BMP II/ IIK at a cost of ` 22.54 crore. The sanction included procurement of 246 Plant,
Machinery and Special Equipment (PMSE) at a cost of ` 19.64 crore. Of the sanctioned
cost of equipment of ` 19.64 Crore, cost of communication and night vision devices was
` 2.32 crore and ` 8.34 crore respectively.
We noticed that the project was sanctioned without any Probable Date of Completion
(PDC). Further, project specific financial powers were not delegated to Commandant, 512
ABW till February 2006 for local purchase and maintenance of PMSE. After delegation of
financial powers, Commandant 512 ABW procured 166 PMSE amounting to ` 3.85 crore by
November 2015. Other PMSE could not be procured due to cost escalation. Audit scrutiny
revealed that to keep the procurement within the sanctioned cost of the Project, DGEME in
July 2015 approved the deletion of 48 PMSEs sanctioned originally and procurement of 32
PMSE with cost escalation of ` 5.99 crore. The deleted PMSEs (originally sanctioned cost
` 9.08 crore) also included collimators that are required for the overhaul of vision devices.
In reply, HQ BWG stated (September 2015) that the technical specification of the Collimators
could not fructify despite the workshop approaching various agencies. Overhaul of vision
devices was now being carried out at Opto-Electronics Factory (OLF) Dehradun as they
had accepted the responsibility of overhaul of complete requirement of vision devices of
BMP. MGO (May 2016) accepted that all the PMSEs required for overhaul have not been
procured so far.
28
3.4 Non- utilization of proof firing facility worth `6.53 crore and issue of
overhauled BMPs to units without proof firing
512 ABW had been overhauling BMP II since 2004. One of the most vital quality check of
overhauled Armament as per quality assurance agency (DGQA) is adjustment firing which
is to be carried out by firing 30mm Canon gun and 7.62 mm Co-axial machine gun. As the
ABW did not have this facility, a special work for proof firing was proposed in 2008.
Though, the site selected for the facility of proof firing was in the remote area and did not
have MES services for electricity and water, administrative approval for the same did not
cater for these essential services. Resultantly, the facility created in November 2013 at a
cost of ` 6.53 crore, did not have electric and water connection and hence could not be
taken over by the ABW (March 2016). Now a separate proposal for catering these services
had been initiated (July 2015) and was under process.
Thus overhauled BMP-II/IIKs continued to be issued to the units and formations without
test firing. As a result defects/failures in Barrel spring assemblies of 30 MM Gun were
reported by the units /formations. In defect investigation, DGQA found (February 2014)
defects in 20 cases of guns overhauled by 512 ABW. It was further stated that no such case
was noticed in the guns overhauled by Ordnance Factory where this test was being carried
out.
In reply MGO accepted (May 2016) that though the proof firing facility was handed over
to 512 ABW in April 2014, the same could not be put to use for want of electric and water
supply. It was further stated that the collegiate conducted to address issue of failure of
barrel spring had not attributed it to lack of proof firing.
3.5 Delays in Modernization of ABWs
As per the 11th Army Plan (2007-2012), all eight ABWs were to be modernized. Necessity
for modernization of the ABWs was felt as a large portion of technical and administrative
infrastructure including plant and machinery was of old vintage and nearing the end of
their useful life and technologically inadequate and primitive to sustain newly inducted
state-of-the-art weapon systems and equipment. The cost of modernization proposals of
five selected ABWs was ` 1781.44 crore as indicated in Table 24 below:
Table 24: Cost of Modernisation Proposals
Name of the ABW Value of Proposal (₹ in crore)
505 ABW 200.00
509 ABW 458.34
510 ABW 381.01
512 ABW 636.65
515 ABW 105.44
Total 1781.44
The proposals of the ABWs were accepted by MGO and consultancy contracts for
preparation of DPR in respect of these five ABWs was concluded by IHQ of MoD (Army)
between March 2010 and December 2012 at a cost of ` 6.51 crore. However, DPR in
29
respect of 505 and 510 ABW could be completed only in June 2014 and for 512 in June
2015. The DPRs for the remaining two ABWs were submitted by the consultants only in
September 2016.
In reply MGO stated (May 2016) that much needed modernization had gained momentum
and was likely to be completed by 2021-22.
3.6 Ineffective execution of procurement of PMSEs included in approved Priority

Procurement Plan (PPP)
The ABWs initiate proposals for procurement of PMSEs for the repair/overhaul activities,
considering necessity arising out of new equipment profile and replacement of vintage
machinery. The PMSEs projected by the ABWs are included in Priority Procurement Plan
(PPP). We found that during the year 2012-13 to 2014-15, total 226 PMSEs valuing `196.09
crore were approved by MGO for inclusion in the PPP. However, the total allotment under
Capital and Revenue Heads during the period 2012-15 was only ` 6.20 crore. This indicated
that the allotment of funds to procure PMSEs was not commensurate with the value of
PMSEs included in the approved PPP. We further observed that out of allotted funds only
` 2.35 crore i.e. 38 per cent were utilized. Out of 226 PMSEs, 192 were pertaining to five
ABWs selected in audit, against which only 31 PMSEs were procured.
While agreeing to audit observation on non-procurement of PMSE, DGEME stated (August

2015) that non-procurement of the PMSEs would have a bearing on the efficiency of the
ABWs as overhauling was being carried out with vintage PMSEs whose replacement are
sought in the PPPs. MGO further stated (May 2016) that allotment of fund was adequate
and done as per cases in progress. Actual allotment is sought when cases reach financial
concurrence stage. It was also stated that all the cases which were listed in PPP would be
procured during the current financial year.
3.6.1 Non-replacement of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP)
512 ABW initiated a proposal (April 2012) for procurement of new ETP for replacement
of the existing one that outlived its useful life.The ABW is handling hazardous effluents
and chemicals which keep accumulating during the process and need to be neutralized
before discharging it into drains, to avoid environmental pollution. We noticed that though
replacement of ETP was included in the Priority Procurement Plan (PPP) of the year 2009-
10, the same was yet to be procured (March 2016). It was further noticed that the effluent
treatment was being carried out manually, which is highly unsafe and an inefficient practice.
This industrial waste was being discharged in to the drainage.
In reply, MGO stated (May 2016) that the ETP could not be procured as specifications
and budgetary quotes of vendors were different and could not be finalized. It was further
stated that after promulgation of new delegation of financial powers the same was included
in revenue procurement plan of 2016-17 and would be procured in 2016-17. It is evident
from the reply that despite inclusion of the procurement proposal in PPP 2009-10, the
specifications of ETP were yet to be finalised.
30
Conclusion:
No Long Range Perspective Plan for creation of infrastructure for the newly inducted
equipment or modernization of the workshops was in place. Failure to plan the setting up of
infrastructure at the time of induction of the equipment had resulted in a situation where the
facilities were created inordinately late, thus, not only impacting the operational readiness
due to delayed overhaul but also leaving the expenditure unfruitful.
Present plant and machinery at ABWs was technologically inadequate and primitive
to sustain newly inducted state of the art weapon system and equipment. Proposals to
modernize infrastructure at ABWs to achieve up-gradation were pending and in few cases,
where it was approved, procurement was not effected either due to lack of funds or non-
utilization of funds.
Recommendations:
1. Preparation of Long Range Perspective Plan should be ensured in order to facilitate

planning and modernization activities at the nominated ABWs so that the overhaul
facilities are ready by the time equipment are due for overhaul.
2. Creation of repair/overhaul facilities should be planned and contracted at the time of
induction of the equipment itself so that benefits accrue timely and can be exploited
during the entire life cycle of the equipment.
3. Overhaul of vision devices is now being carried out at Opto-Electronics Factory
(OLF), Dehradun as they had accepted the responsibility of overhaul of complete
requirement of vision devices of BMP. In view of this development, MoD may
review the scope and implementation of Project Tulip for establishment of additional
facilities at 512 ABW.
4. AHQ should lay out a time bound action plan for modernization of ABWs to
overcome the problems due to vintage PMSEs currently in use and also to sustain
new generation weapon systems.
5. Ministry should expedite the Component Level Repair (CLR) project for supporting
Tank T-90 with repair facilities.
6. As MBT Arjun Tank are due for overhaul from 2020-21, Ministry should explore
and expedite indigenous development of components of MBT Arjun and creation of
repair and overhaul facilities.
7. Army HQ should expedite operationalisation of shooting gallery at 512 ABW and
necessary authorization of ammunition for test firing of overhauled guns.
31
Chapter-IV: Spares Management

4.0 Introduction
The review on Working of Army Base Workshops, carried out by the C&AG (Report
No. 14 of 1992) highlighted the issue on non-exploitation of full capacity of ABWs due
to non-availability of repairable and poor backup of spares.
In the Action Taken Note, Ministry stated (August 2000) that various steps had been
taken to forecast realistic targets and achieve them by way of Equipment Management
Policy (Maintenance Philosophy and Intervention Norms) before induction of equipment.
Ministry also suggested holding of annual, half yearly and quarterly meetings to review
the spares availability.
Further, comment regarding non-achievement of targets by ABWs, was made in the

C&AG report No. 6 of 2005 (Para 3.1). In the Action Taken Note, Ministry accepted
(November 2006) that non-availability of spares was the major reason for non-
achievement of targets. To overcome the problem of non-availability of spares, various
actions such as holding of periodical meetings amongst stake holders, discussions
during target fixation meeting and mid-term review meetings, limited local purchases
to meet the emergent requirements, wherever engineering standards are met etc. were
taken by Ministry.
Despite the corrective steps taken by the Ministry through ATNs, non-availability of
spares continued which remained a major hindrance in achievement of the overhaul
targets. We analyzed the implementation of the spares management measures including
provisioning. Our examination of records at DGEME, HQBWG, ABWs and feeding
Ordnance Depots revealed the following points:
4.1 Provisioning of spares
The annual review meeting on fixation and revision of targets chaired by MGO decides
targets for overhaul by ABWs. Accordingly, DGOS issues Special Provision Review
Directive (SPRD) indicating total population of vehicles for maintenance and overhaul
in the Army. As per the directives, advance provisioning of spares and materials required
for overhaul is the responsibility of feeding depots i.e. CAFVD and CODs. Based on
the SPRD, the concerned feeding depots are required to initiate action for provision of
spares. This process has to commence five years in advance of the ABWs production
year. The feeding depots obtain the required spares from Ordnance factories, PSUs and
through trade.
32
Each Workshop is provided with an Ordnance Store Section (OSS) specifically to co-
ordinate and facilitate the timely availability of spares. OSS is responsible for placing
demand for spares as per overhaul programme on the feeding depot, in June of each year,
i.e. nine months in advance of the production year.
4.1.1 Failure of Ordnance Depots in supply of spares
Our examination of the OSS records at ABWs, during the review period, revealed that the
spares demanded were not provided by the Depots to the Workshops in required range16 and
depth.17 The details of non-availability are summarized in Table 25 below:
Table 25: Non availability of items during the year
Year 512 ABW@ 505 ABW# 510 ABW*
Types of Types Non avail- Types of Types Non avail- Types of Types Non avail-
Items de- of Items ability Items de- of Items ability Items de- of Items ability
manded received percentage manded received percentage manded received percentage
2010-11 1580 996 37 4894 2757 44 12612 3514 72
2011-12 2565 1942 24 5702 2758 43 9497 3169 67
2012-13 2267 1501 34 3386 1664 50 9380 2649 72
2013-14 2490 2008 19 4541 2080 54 6260 1656 74
2014-15 2741 2060 25 4274 2426 43 9684 3041 69
2015-16 3520 2640 25 8320 4242 49 6992 2701 61
@ Items demanded from CAFVD Kirkee for BMP
# Items demanded from CAFVD Kirkee for Tank T-72
*Total items demanded from all CODs
At 512 ABW it can be seen that the percentage non-availability of spares in respect of the
total items of BMPs was in the range of 19 to 37 per cent. Similarly at 505 ABW and 510
ABW, non-availability percentage ranged between 43 and 54 per cent and 61and 74 per
cent respectively.
We further observed at 512 ABW that some of the production hold up items like crank shaft
assembly (as per the overhaul scale, four to be replaced with new for every ten engines
overhauled), required for overhaul of UTD 20 Engine remained unavailable since 2012-13
onwards. Non- availability of spares for overhaul of UTD 20 Engines in required range
and depth necessitated calling in additional repairable engines by 512 ABW from feeding
depots for facilitating rollover. This resulted in accumulation of 100 engines as of March
2016 for overhaul at 512ABW. UTD 20 Engine required for overhaul of BMP vehicles
(overhaul scale is 40 engines per 100) were also not received. Thus the workshop had to
utilize the overhauled engines instead of new engines.
16
Range of spares- Total type of spares required for overhaul
17
Depth of spares- Quantity of particular spares required.
33
Similarly, some of the production hold up items at 505 ABW like ERA Box18, Track
Assembly, AS-34 internal communication device, Night sights (TKN-3 and TPN 1-49-23)
remained unavailable since 2012-13 onwards in full depth. ERA Box is to protect the Tank
from anti-Tank ammunition, Track assembly is the part on which Tank moves whereas night
sights provides night vision. Due to continued non-availability of these items, overhaul of
the Tanks was carried out with deviation sanctions, affecting the operational efficiency of
the Tanks.
Our examination of the records at 509 ABW during the review period revealed that the
spares demanded by the workshop were not supplied by COD Agra in complete range and
depth. The percentage of non-compliance of spares during the period 2010-11 to 2015-16
in respect of important equipment like Radar, Radio, Line and Optoelectronic equipment
was 36 to 52, 61 to 76, 71 to 94 and 64 to 93 respectively. The delay in supply included 72
types of spares which were pending for more than five years.
In reply, MGO stated (May 2016) that low availability of spares was the primary reason
for Production holdups and non- delivery of spares by Ordnance Factories/ DPSUs was the
main reason for slippages of targets and under performance by the ABWs.
Low compliance of spares on the part of feeding depots due to delay/non supply of spares
by OFs/ DPSUs affected the targets of overhauls, leading to huge backlog in overhaul and
consequently affecting the availability of equipment to the field Army, thereby reducing
operational readiness.
4.1.2 Delay in placement of demands for spares by CAFVD, Kirkee
As per Army HQrs instructions, Demand/ Supply Orders should be placed by Ordnance
Depots within two months from the date of provisioning review. In order to examine the
provisioning done by the Depots during the review period, 23 critical spares of Tank T-72
and BMPs were examined for sample check.
We observed that in seven cases indents were forwarded to IHQ of MoD for procurement
as they were not within the financial powers of the Commandant, CAFVD. In these cases,
there was either delay in sanction by the CFA or sanction was not accorded and even in
cases of delayed sanction, supply orders were not placed by the CAFVD. In respect of
the remaining 16 cases, procurement of the spares was sanctioned by the Commandant,
CAFVD and supply orders were placed on private vendors. All these supply orders were
cancelled during September 2011 to February 2012 mainly due to failure of the firms to
supply the stores. Subsequently, indents for supply of all the 23 items were placed on
Ordnance Factories in March 2012. Incidentally, these supply orders were not required
to be placed with the private vendors in the first place as MoD guidelines (March 2002)
18
ERA box are provided for protection against anti-tank ammunition, Repaired old track assembly were
being fitted post overhaul against new, Non-availability of AS-34 leads to no internal communication and
No night vision capability present with the affected Tanks due to absence of Night sights (TKN-3 and
TPN 1-49-23)
34
clearly stipulate that procurement of all the spares in respect of T-72 and BMP were to be
met from OEM i.e. Ordnance Factories.
In respect of all the selected 23 cases, there were abnormal delays ranging between 725
days and 2551 days in the placement of orders with the OEM.
In reply MGO stated (July 2016) that delay had occurred due to single source of supply/
reduction in scales, procedural delays in obtaining CFA sanction, DGQA inspection issues,
cancellation of TPC indents and items not in factory Bill of Material.
The reply is indicative of the fact that the internal delays in the organization are affecting the
procurement process. Thus, the very purpose of advance planning of five years to procure
spares required for overhaul in order to issue to ABWs at the beginning of production year
for overhaul was defeated.
4.1.3 Non-materialization of indents placed on Ordnance Factories
Ordnance Factories (OFs) are the designated supplier of spares being OEM for Tank
T-72 and BMP. CAFVD, Kirkee places indents on the respective OFs for the spares of
these combat vehicles. The annual targets for supply of spares for the factories are fixed
by the MGO after due consultation with all stake holders, including representation from
the OFB.We observed that, though the Interim Period19 (IP) of Ordnance Factories for
supply of spares was 36 months, the factories could not supply the spares in adequate
range and depth.
Our examination revealed that as of September 2015, 15240 indents placed by CAFVD
up to March 2013 were overdue for delivery against nine factories responsible for supply
of spares for Class “A” vehicles. As far as supply of spares for BMP, Tank T-72 and the
engines for both these vehicles are concerned, supplies against 10499, 1122 and 2749
indents were awaited from HVF Avadi, EF Avadi and OF Medak respectively. These
include indents outstanding against EF Avadi since 2002-03 and on HVF since 2003-
04.
4.1.4 Non-materialization of indents placed on PSUs
i. Tatra vehicles which are Class B i.e. non combat vehicles used in Indian Army
for transportation of Tanks and also as missile launcher, gun-towing tractor, ammunition
carrier, medium recovery vehicles, etc. Overhaul of Tatra vehicles are carried out by the
ABWs at Meerut and Allahabad. COD, Dehuroad is the feeding depot and M/s BEML,
Bengaluru is the designated for supply of all spares and aggregate of Tatra vehicle.
Our examination at COD, Dehu Road revealed that 142 supply orders (997 items) of the
period 2008 -14 placed on BEML for supply of spares for Tatra vehicle/engine did not
materialize.
19
Interim Period- It is the period in which the suppliers have to supply the stores.
35
Further, our examination of records at BEML Bengaluru revealed that 100 per cent supply
was pending against 795 items and part supplies were made against 25 items. The reasons
for non-supply of spares was attributed to non-supply of spares by OEM, non-indigenization
of most items of spares ordered for non-euro version of Tatra vehicles and extraneous
situation of import embargo on BEML post June 2012.
The above situation was despite the fact that M/s BEML had agreement with the OEM
(M/s OMNIPOL) way back in 1986 for indigenous manufacturing of Tatra Vehicles and
its spares. Issue of inordinate delay in indigenisation of spares by BEML was highlighted
in our earlier report (Para 2.1 of CAG report No. 35 of 2014 Union Government, Defence
Services). As stated in the report the indigenisation of the spares did not commence till
2007 and as a result only 4,423 items of spares out of total 10,878 items i.e. 40.66 per cent
had been indigenised by 2013. Further there was short fall in supply of 1758 items of spares
worth ` 39.51 crore out of 4078 indigenised items for which orders were placed by COD
Dehuroad during 2008-14.
ii. During the period 2010-16, of the total 1152 supply orders valuing ` 475.78 crore,
placed by COD Agra on M/s BEL for supply of electronic items for equipment like Radar
Fly catcher, Radar TC reporter etc.,689 orders (60%) valuing ` 323.21crore were pending
on M/s BEL as indicated in Table 26 below:
Table-26: Supply orders pending on M/s BEL

Year SOs Placed SOs Pending Value of Pending SOs
Nos. % of non-material- (` in crore)
ization
2010-11 188 107 57 8.44
2011-12 294 119 40 31.28
2012-13 109 45 41 20.90
2013-14 53 28 53 39.96
2014-15 188 105 56 57.21
2015-16 320 285 89 165.42
Total 1152 689 60 323.21
We observed that these pending orders included 72 production hold up items. Non-
availability of these production hold up spares therefore affected the overhaul of Radar
Flycatcher, BFSR and TC Reporter.
4.2 Non-availability of critical spares leading to deviation sanctions
As per Technical Instruction No. 2 issued (November 2004) by HQ BWG, Deviation

sanctions may be initiated by concerned ABW in case of non-availability of components
or modification kits, provided these do not adversely affect the operational reliability
and performance of the equipment as a whole and do not cause any risk to the life of
crew or operator. The issue of deviation sanctions should not be a matter of routine but an
exception.
36
Quality Control Engineers (QCEs) attached to the workshops, who directly function under
HQ Base Workshop Group in their remarks would give detailed justification and reasoning,
both technical and logistic, while recommending or otherwise, a deviation. Commandants
of ABWs are personally responsible for the efficient operation of equipment in respect
of which deviation sanctions have been granted. In this regard the following points were
noticed at the selected workshops.
505 ABW
The items for which deviations were accorded by MGO, while issuing Tanks T-72 to the
Depot/Units due to non-availability of critical spares and assemblies are indicated in Table
27 below:
Table-27: Deviations sanctions accorded at 505 ABW for want of spares

Year Output Items for which deviation accorded
of T-72 Gunner NVD ERA AS-34 AS-37 Road Track Gasoline
TPN 1-49, Box Wheel Assy Engine
NVD TKN-3
2010-11 35 35 - - - - - -
2011-12 10 09 - 01 - - 01 -
2012-13 50 06 40 22 43 09
2013-14 30 - 30 15 18 22 06 04
2014-15 40 - 40 - 15 38 13 12
2015-16 40 - 10 - - 10 10 05
It can be seen that the Tanks were issued to units for use without replacement of vital
items like ERA Box, Track Assembly, AS-34, Night vision devices for which deviation was
accorded. These were yet to be received in the field which would affect the performance
of the Tanks. Given the significance of these important components i.e. ERA Box- which
protects Tanks from explosive attack; Track Assembly- used for movement of the Tank;
AS-34- Communication device and Night vision devices in the overall functioning of the
Tank, their issue to the units for operational purpose was fraught with the risk of loss of
life and equipment.
512 ABW
We observed from the compiled data of the Deviation sanctions proposed by 512 ABW and
accorded by MGO, that all the 398 overhauled BMPs issued to CAFVD during the period
(2010-16) under review were sanctioned with deviations. Contrary to the provisions in
technical instructions, we observed that deviation sanctions were accorded as a matter of
routine and 139 BMPs were issued against recommendation of Quality Control Engineer
(QCE), which included 19 BMPs overhauled in 2010-11 and 77 BMPs overhauled in 2013-
14 that were declared by QCE as ‘not battle worthy’ due to non-availability of night vision
devices, but were cleared by the MGO despite the recommendations of the QCE.
37
In reply 512 ABW stated (August 2015) that in absence of spares, the workshop did not
have any option but to ask for deviation and hand over the overhaul equipment. It is
evident from the reply that operational reliability of the equipment was not being ensured
as these vehicles would suffer from night blindness in a war scenario.
In reply to audit observation, MGO stated (May 2016) that deviation sanctions are strictly
asked for spares/ assemblies which do not affect the operational reliability of the equipment
under any circumstances. It was further stated that in case the deviation sanction affects
the operational requirement, the deviation sanction is issued in consultation with Line
Directorate and MGOs Branch to utilize that particular equipment till receipt of necessary
spares from source of supply.
The reply is not tenable as DGEME with reference to indigenization of assemblies/ sub-
assemblies had conveyed (May 2015) their concerns to Directorate of Indigenisation that
due to non-availability of spares, the deviation sanctions were invoked to circumvent the
problem in the short run and the equipment remained incomplete and the deficient items
never got issued to the equipment. Hence it is evident that such equipment, though issued
to the units are not fully fit for the operations.
4.3 Non-replacement of defective stores by Ordnance Factories
The feeding depots receive spares from Ordnance Factories under self-certification by
QA of the Ordnance Factories which are subjected to inspection by Quality Control (QC)
section of ABWs. The QC initiates ‘Defect Report’ for defective spares and the defects
are investigated by CQAs being Authority Holding Sealed Particulars (AHSP). After
completion of defect investigation, the CQAs recommend back loading of defective stores
to Ordnance Factories/DPSUs for replacement/rectification. We observed that most of the
defective stores were replaced by the supplier i.e. M/s BEL. However, the response of the
Ordnance Factories in replacing the defective stores was very poor.
• 512 ABW
CAFVD had back-loaded defective stores worth `3.19 crore during the review period to
OF Medak for replacement but no replacements were received even after periods ranging
from one to five years (October 2015). OF Medak in November 2015 confirmed that no
cost adjustment was made for the defective stores and the rejected items would be rectified/
repaired by them.
• 510 ABW
Similarly, 510 ABW raised 173 defect reports during the review period. The defective store
was lying at OSS 510 ABW. The defective store was yet to be back loaded to the concerned
depots.
Thus, the slow pace of Ordnance Factories in replacing defective stores and delay on the
part of 510 ABW to backload the defective stores is a matter of concern as it affects the
overhaul activities at ABWs.
38
4.4 Delay in Implementation of ‘System Based Central Depots’
The two major workshops i.e. 505 and 512 ABW responsible for overhaul of Class “A”
vehicles are dependent on six Central Ordnance Depots for obtaining the spares for the
overhaul of respective equipment. Present model for spares supply in existence at the ABWs
is shown in Chart-2 below:
Chart- 2: Model for supply of spares.
The dependency on multiple depots for spares support of equipment was a major area of
dissatisfaction for the ABWs, as they had to raise multiple demands and correspond with
various feeding depots. In order to improve user satisfaction and ensure better equipment
management, MGO decided in July 2013 to redistribute the entire ordnance inventory in
a phased manner and workout the modalities for implementing ‘System Based Central
Depots’.
As a pilot project, CAFVD, Kirkee was to be established as a system depot for Tank T-72
and T-90. For this, all central depots were to identfy the exclusive inventory pertaining to
T-72 and T-90 Tanks and trasfer the same to CAFVD by December 2013. We, however,
observed that the transfer of inventory from COD Agra to CAFVD was completed only in
September 2015. Further, CAFVD was yet to place supply order for these spares (March
2016).
In reply DGOS (July 2016) while reiterating that CAFVD must continue to act as the single
window for spares management of Tanks T-72 and T-90 did not give specific comment on
the delay in implementation of pilot project.
39
4.5 Lack of coordination between supply and overhaul agency resulting in

procurement of unwarranted spares
DGOS is responsible for provisioning of spares and DGEME is responsible for overhaul
and maintenance of fleet of Army vehicles. Both these agencies under MGO, are required to
work in close co-ordination on spares procurement and management to achieve the goal of
timely and satisfactory overhaul. We however observed that lack of co-ordination between
these two agencies had resulted in procurement of unwarranted spares as discussed below:
352 ARV WZT-3 were procured by Army in phases between the year 1999 and 2004 and
these were being exploited regularly. Over a period of 15 years, wastage pattern of spares
has been established.
We observed that for concluding a contract agreement (October 2011) with M/s BEML
for supply of 204 ARV WZT-3 at a cost of ` 1400.85 crore, the Ordnance Branch was not
consulted by EME Branch before finalizing the list of spares to be included in contract under
MRLS (Manufacturers recommended list of Spares) in spite of the established wastage
pattern. As a result 765 spares where wastage pattern is established were not included in
MRLS and 83 items for which no wastage had been established were included. Had the list
of MRLS been finalized in consultation with Ordnance Branch, these spares would have
been received as a part of contract.
In reply, MGO stated (May 2016) that though the wastage pattern of spares was established,
M/s BEML could not supply the spares, hence MRLS was included in the contract.
The reply is not tenable as the stocking agency (DGOS) should have been consulted by
DGEME prior to inclusion of MRLS in the contract so that only such stores with established
wastage pattern were procured.
Conclusion:
In the Action Taken Note to C&AG report of 2005, Ministry had stated (November 2006)
that for spares management, various steps such as holding of quarterly spares review
meeting, target fixation and mid-term review meeting, creation of special task force for
monitoring overhaul commitments and regular interaction with Ordnance Branch would be
taken up. However, the problem of timely availability of spares continued. Non availability
of spares in adequate range and depth and in time was the main reason for delay in overhaul
and consequent, backlog of equipment for overhaul. The demands for spares were also not
placed in time by feeding depots on supply agencies. OEMs though nominated as primary
suppliers of spares and single window for particular equipment, also failed as they did not
have adequate capacities to meet this obligation.
In the absence of critical spares, the overhauled equipment were issued to units and
formations with deviation sanctions. These deficiencies could also not be addressed in the
field, thus, affecting the performance of the equipment.
ABWs had complex model of spares supply where spares for equipment were demanded
from multiple feeding depots, located at different places. Though, to overcome the problem,
40
concept of system base central depot was conceived, however the pilot project for creating
CAFVD as a single window for spare management for Tank T-72 and T-90 is yet to be
implemented.
Recommendations:
1. An integrated IT based spares management system needs to be put in place for timely
provisioning, procurement and availability of spares.
2. The System based depots concept introduced by Army need to be implemented on

priority.
3. For augmenting availability of spares, constraints in the availability of spare need

to be identified and process of making available spares through manufacturing or
procurement from trade/OFs need to be streamlined. Reasons for delays in execution
of Work Orders at 515 ABW need to be diagnosed and addressed.
New Delhi (PARAG PRAKASH)

Dated: 26 December 2016 Director General of Audit, Defence Services
Countersigned
New Delhi (SHASHI KANT SHARMA)

Dated: 26 December 2016 Comptroller & Auditor General of India
41
List of Abbreviation
ARV Armoured Recovery Vehicle
ABW Army Base Workshop
ADG (Proc) Additional Director General (Procurement)
ADG (EM) Additional Director General (Equipment Management)
AFV Armoured Fighting Vehicle
AHQ Army Head Quarters
AHSP Authority Holding Sealed Particulars
ATN Action Taken Note
BDL Bharat Dynamics Limited
BEL Bharat Electronics Limited
BEML Bharat Earth Movers Limited
FSR(MR) Battle Field Surveillance Radar (Medium Range)
BHEL Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
CAFVD Central Armoured Fighting Vehicle Depot
CASD Central Aviation Supply Depot
CFA Competent Financial Authority
CLR Component Level Repair
COD Central Ordnance Depot
CQA Controllerate of Quality Assurance
CVD Central Vehicle Depot
CVRDE Combat Vehicle Research Development Establishment
DG Sets Diesel Generating Sets
DGEME Director General Electronics and Mechanical Engineering
DGMF Director General Mechanised Forces
DGOS Director General Ordnance Services
DGQA Director General Quality Assurance
DPR Detailed Project Report
DPSU Defence Public Sector Undertaking
EFA Engine Factory Avadi
EME Electronics and Mechanical Engineering
EMPS Equipment Management Policy Statement
ERA Explosive Reactive Armour
ESP Engineering Support Package
ETP Effluent Treatment Plant
HAL Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd
HQ BWG Headquarters Base Workshop Group
HRV Heavy Recovery Vehicle
42
HVF Heavy Vehicle Factory

ICV Infantry Combat Vehicle
IHQ Integrated Head Quarters
IP Interim Period
IP Industrial Personnel
IT Information Technology
LRPP Long Range Perspective Plan
MBT Main Battle Tank
MES Military Engineering Services
MGO Master General of Ordnance
MISO Management Information System Organisation
MoD Ministry of Defence
MR Medium Repair
MRLS Manufacturers Recommended List of Spares
MUA Major Unit Assembly
NBC Nuclear Biological and Chemical
OD Ordnance Depot
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OF Ordnance Factory
OFB Ordnance Factory Board
OFM Ordnance Factory Medak
OH Overhaul
OLF Opto Electronics Factory
OPI Operational Immediate
OSS Ordnance Store Section
PDC Probable Date of Completion
PMSE Plant Machinery Special Equipment
PP Perspective Planning
PPP Priority Procurement Plan
PSU Public Sector Undertaking
PTY Priority
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
QCE Quality Control Engineer
QI Quality Index
RFP Request for Proposal
RI Residential Inspector
RO Release Order
ROE Rosoboronexport
43
RUT Routine
SMT Special Machine Tools
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPRD Special Provision Review Directive
STE Special Test Equipment
TGEME Technical Group Electronics and Mechanical Engineering
TJ Tools/Jigs
ToT Transfer of Technology
WO Work Orders
44
lR;eso t;rs
Report of the
on
Working of
Report No. 36 of 2016 - Union Government (Defence Services - Army)

Army Base Workshops
© COMPTROLLER AND
AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
www.cag.gov.in
Union Government
(Defence Services - Army)
(Performance Audit)

Report 36 of 2016 Union Government Defence PA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 36 of 2016 Union Government Defence PA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 36 of 2016 Union Government Defence PA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lR;eso t;rs

Report No. 36 of 2016 - Union Government (Defence Services - Army)

Working of Army Base Workshops

for the year ended March 2016

2.8 515 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Bengaluru 20

• 510 ABW undertakes overhaul of various engineering equipment and specialist

(Paragraph 2.4.1, 2.5.1, 2.6, 2.7)

Inordinate delay in overhaul

(Paragraph 2.4.2,2.5.2, 2.6.1)

Low Quality Index for overhaul of BMPs

Delay in dispatch of overhauled equipment to Units

(Paragraph 2.4.3,2.5.3, 2.6.2)

Non-availability of testing facilities at the ABWs

Inordinate delay in execution of Work Orders at 515 ABW

Workshop Location Mandate

1.1 Organizational Structure

quality checks of overhauled equipments and allocation /redistribution of manpower within

1.2 Previous Audit Reports and Ministry’s response

1.3 Audit Objectives

1.4 Audit Criteria

1.5 Scope of Audit

1.6 Audit Methodology

1.7 Audit Findings

Chapter II: Effectiveness of Army Base Workshops

2.1 Equipment profile

2.2 Maintenance Philosophy and Intervention Norms

2.2.1 Maintenance Process

2.3 Backlog in overhaul of important class ‘A’ equipment

Table 4:- Backlog of overhaul of important class ‘A’ equipment

2.3.1 Backlog in overhaul of important Signal equipment

Battle Field 2001 to 252 1 stOH-201 159 00 159 1st OH- 42

2.4 505 Army Base Workshop (ABW), New Delhi

2.4.1 Non achievement of overhaul targets

2.4.2 Delay in overhaul

2.4.3 Delay in issue of overhauled Tank T-72 to Units

Table-9: Time taken in dispatch of overhauled Tank T-72 collected by CVD

2.4.4 Quality Index of overhauled equipment and engines

2.4.5 Issue of overhauled equipment without testing

2.5 512 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Kirkee

2.5.1 Non achievement of overhaul targets

2011-12 100 85 85 10 2 2 150 110 110

2012-13 116 + 4 96 85 2 2 2 150 50 41

2.5.2 Delay in overhaul

2.5.3 Delay in issue of overhauled equipment to Units

Table-14: Time taken in dispatch of overhauled BMPs collected by CAFVD

2.5.4 Quality of overhauled BMPs

(i) Low Quality Index

Table-16: Defect frequency of overhauled equipment

NA= Not Available

(ii) Issue of overhauled equipment without testing

C. Vital deficiency of Special Machine Tools (SMTs), Special Tools Equipment

(iii) Feedback of overhauled equipment from the Users

2.6 509 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Agra

Table17:- Non-achievement of Overhaul Targets for signal equipment

2.6.1 Delay in overhaul of Signal equipments

2.6.2 Delay in dispatch of signal equipments to the units

2.7 510 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Meerut

2.8 515 Army Base Workshop (ABW), Bengaluru

2.8.1 Non-commencement of overhaul of aviation rotables

C. Vital deficiency of Special Machine Tools (SMTs), Special Tools Equipment

3.2.1 Creation of overhaul facility two years prior to completion of de-induction

3.6 Ineffective execution of procurement of PMSEs included in approved Priority

4.5 Lack of coordination between supply and overhaul agency resulting in