Quality Assurance of Defence Equipment

Quality Assurance, or QA for short, refers to a programme for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the various aspects of a project, service or facility to ensure that standards of quality are being met.  It is important to realise that quality is determined by the programme sponsor or designer or manufacturer. Unfortunately, QA cannot absolutely guarantee the production of quality products but makes this more likely, within the laid down and acceptable tolerance levels. Two key principles that characterise QA are, "fit for purpose" (the product should be suitable for the intended purpose) and "right first time" (mistakes should be eliminated). QA includes regulation of the quality of raw materials, assemblies, products and components, services related to production and management, production and inspection processes.

It is important to realise that quality is also determined by the intended users, clients or customers and not by society in general. It is not the same as 'expensive' or 'high quality'. Even goods with low prices can be considered quality items if they meet a market need. QA implies providing confidence to the customer by consistently delivering products that work satisfactorily every time, any time and all time, to specifications.  Ideally, QA should begin from the design stage of a product and stretch to providing quality even during the in-service/exploitation stages. All equipment in the Indian Army, whether procured through capital or revenue route is to be cleared by Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) prior to induction.

Brief Historical Background

DGQA was initially raised as Inspectorates at Production Agencies (PAs) in 1869. During WW II, Directorate of Inspection was established under MGOs Branch and Ministry of Industry & Supplies. In 1946, it became a part of Directorate of Technology Development under MGO, prior to coming under the Controller General Defence Production (CGDP), MoD in 1955.  The R&D and inspection functions were bifurcated and two separate organisations were created - DRDO and Directorate General of Inspections, later redesignated as DGQA in 1968.  

The role of DGQA is to provide QA of defence stores/equipment procured from Ordnance Factories (OFs) and public and private industry, as also ex- import.  It however does not cover stores/equipment procured through Local Purchase (LP) / direct procurement by the users.

Drawbacks of the Present System

Conflict of Interest : DGQA presently functions under Department of Defence Production (DDP), which incidentally is also responsible for OFBs and DPSUs. It provides QA, technical services/ guidance, defect investigation, product improvement and vendor registration functions for the user (Services). Several studies in the past, including performance audit of the DGQA by CAG in 2005, have commented on the functioning of DGQA under DDP as being an organisational infirmity impinging on the independence of DGQA.  The Services have also expressed their reservations on the command and control of DGQA not being suited to their requirements.  Both QA agency (DGQA) and the Production Agency (PA), being under DDP leads to compromising of the mandate of DGQA in favour of the PA. Also DGQA under DDP is an inhibitor in providing a level playing field to the private industry which may have better quality equipment to offer to the Services.

Issues Impinging on Quality of Defence Equipment

• User(Services) which are a major stakeholder have no control over QA organisation. Interests of the Services, for which the QA has been setup, has no credence in the DGQA functioning and responsiveness.
• Preponderance of DGQA being Army specific adversely impinges on the requirements of the other two Services. Although commonality of equipment between the Services exists in certain items, majority of QA requirements of the three Services are different.
• OFB/DPSU products have a poor QA/QC track record particularly with reference to ammunition, ‘A’ vehicles and other major platforms.
• Accountability of the DGQA to the user i.e., Services, is lacking. Though DGQA is involved with the user in equipment procurement from the Services Qualitative Requirements (SQR) formulation stage onwards, their accountability for delays in procurement is nonexistent. DGQA trials are often protracted involving voluminous paper work, resulting in delay in fructification of procurement projects.
• Sub-optimal utilisation of the DGQA resources including manpower.
• Non-evolution of DGQA from inspection agency into a thorough QA agency. DGQA continues to operate with a philosophy and ethos of erstwhile ‘Inspectorates’.
• DGQA involvement in private industry is limited to vendor registration only. Being the Authority Holding Sealed Particulars (AHSP) {specs, designs and detailed engineering drawings of a particular equipment}, it can play an important role in indigenisation.
• Lack of adequate technical support for the Services during in-service phase of the equipment. Although DGQA investigates defect reports initiated by the user during the exploitation phase, it seldom makes practical and cost effective modifications. Responsibility of Quality Control (QC) during the production phase needs to be with the PAs. A large part of DGQA manpower has been shed to OFBs for Quality Control tasks during production.
• Lack of QA policy direction by MoD / Services.
• AHSP role of DGQA often leads to conflict of interest between QA & PA, incase of OFs and DPSUs.

Recommendations

• The procedure of acceptance is fairly similar for QA issues for both capital and revenue procurements. After the placement of supply order (SO), an Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP) incorporating all the tests and certification for acceptance of the product ordered is prepared.  The conditions laid down for acceptance are often extremely stringent and capital intensive for vendors participating in the bidding process. The stakes are very high as finally, only one vendor is likely to bag the contract. Expenditure incurred by all other vendors not winning the bid therefore becomes wasteful expenditure and discourages them from fielding their equipment. It has been observed that many vendors withdraw at this stage. It is therefore recommended that those vendors whose bids have been rejected must be compensated in a minimal manner, for which suitable provisions in DPP need to be included.
• Lack of multi-skilled engineering staff with DGQA is evident from the fact that number of DGQA staff attending procurement collegiate/ meetings (especially pre-bid meetings with vendors and technical evaluation committee meetings) is far lesser than those from other departments/ branches/ directorates.
• The draft ATP is invariably prepared by the vendor on whom the supply order is placed. Since a vendor has a vested interest, the draft ATP may not mention some vital tests for which the vendor does not have the facility and/or certifications. ATP is perhaps the most important document in the evaluation process and needs to be diligently and carefully prepared by DGQA. A well-researched and stringent ATP can minimise occurrence of a number of defects due to material and manufacturing inadequacies, after the equipment is put into service.
• In order to cut costs and time required for technical and environmental evaluation it is recommended that only those tests should be undertaken by DGQA, which are not possible to be carried out anywhere else at various laboratories accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) within the country.
• Reputed vendors may be permitted self-certification on a case-to-case basis taking into account their past performance, international business reputation and internationally accepted accreditations.
• A single window interaction of user and WE directorate with DGQA will go a long way to obviate the long-standing trust deficit, accountability and lack of responsiveness towards the user (Services).
• Creation of a pool of DGQA staff possessing multiple skills by bifurcation into broad streams such as mechanical, electronics and computer sciences.
• DGQA needs to evolve towards total quality management (TQM) approach, which focuses on the consumer/ customer.
• DGQA be placed under HQ IDS, wherein accountability of the QA agencies to the users will be ensured. This would de-link the DGQA from the PAs and enable QA concerns of all three Services to be addressed and accountability of the QA agencies to the users will be ensured. A Services QA Board (SQAB), be formed under respective SHQ to address specific user related issues during procurement and in-service stages.  This will also ensure optimal utilisation of the DGQA resources, however will require major organisational changes and political will.

A military is as good as its equipment and leadership. It is the sole responsibility of the military and bureaucratic hierarchy to ensure that reliable and ruggedised equipment is given to the Services to accomplish their mission. QA and QC are thus important aspects in ensuring this end state.

The author is a Senior Fellow at CLAWS. Views expressed are personal.