Apart from the points you've rightly highlighted let me add my 2 cents about production mktg & sales based purely on my experience on the ATAGS vs ATHOS & not on other systems from where these points I'd highlight below can be extrapolated to an extent . Having said that let me also add the disclaimer that I haven't gone thru any defence tender documents so take what I've to say with a pinch of salt. I'd welcome contributions from more experienced members correcting me .
The ATAGS is slated to be manufactured by Bharat Forge one of the top forging companies in the world . So technical competence & global supply chain while a factor otherwise can be safely ruled out as factors in deciding price as @Chain Smoker highlights .
SQRs like those which @Ankit Kumar alludes to namely range ought to be a factor which IA / MoD ought to be considering when evaluating tenders seeking ATAGS assuming it's competing with ATHOS , thereby awarding higher marks to ATAGS which should significantly affect the overall weightage of technical evaluation + price bid in the final analysis.
In any case this isn't being manufactured by the OFBs so inefficiencies in mfg practices , etc is ruled out . Taxation comes under a separate head in price evaluations. If ATAGS is competing in foreign tenders with no additional points for range they ought to be entering their Bharat 52 in such competitions else it's pointless competing .
For a like comparison let's consider the ATHOS vs ATAGS case . Focusing on ATHOS let's consider the organisation producing it namely Soltam Systems. For Soltam Systems , ATHOS is merely one more product in their portfolio of similar guns which means compatibility which obviously translates into interchangeability owing to similar if not same design hence reduced input costs resulting in cheaper selling prices. For Bharat Forge / Kalyani & Tatas it's their first product .
Moreover , assuming Soltam Systems goes up against another OEM mfg howitzers the trick would be to sell the system at a loss if push comes to shove & earn thru sales of spares where anyone who's in the business of engineering goods whether light medium or heavy will tell you that no matter what the product is , spares sell for a minimum of 2x the price it costs if it were a sub system as part of the larger system during initial sale. In defense this minimum sales price of such spares would probably be 4x . That's how they cover up on whatever losses / reduced margins they make on initial sales of such systems.
Now IA / MoD are no chumps which is why I asked if anyone looked into the previous RFP where ATHOS was declared L1 some yrs back before the entire tender was scrapped.
Except for the breech mechanism & associated computerised system + automation everything else namely the barrels , tyres etc would be sourced locally . The trick in such cases is to identify critical elements & get a low down on their costs as spares along with the life cycle of such systems . I wonder if this was done in the previous tender which ATHOS won .
They should be adopting similar measures when it comes to tenders specifying indigenization percentages . What we get vide press reports ( knowing the quality of defence journalism in India the less said the better ) is 50% or 60% indigenization asked for without specifying in which areas.
If you were to go back to the above example of ATHOS itself if the ATHOS were selected , as per these bland terms of no LCC in the tender & 60% indigenization for example they'd happily offload barrel mfg to Kalyani who'd gladly accept such an order given their proven expertise & renown in forging quality products at extremely low prices while still making a fortune from the breech mechanism customised computerized system & sundry automation.
As PKS often says the devil lies in the details.
The ATAGS is slated to be manufactured by Bharat Forge one of the top forging companies in the world . So technical competence & global supply chain while a factor otherwise can be safely ruled out as factors in deciding price as @Chain Smoker highlights .
SQRs like those which @Ankit Kumar alludes to namely range ought to be a factor which IA / MoD ought to be considering when evaluating tenders seeking ATAGS assuming it's competing with ATHOS , thereby awarding higher marks to ATAGS which should significantly affect the overall weightage of technical evaluation + price bid in the final analysis.
In any case this isn't being manufactured by the OFBs so inefficiencies in mfg practices , etc is ruled out . Taxation comes under a separate head in price evaluations. If ATAGS is competing in foreign tenders with no additional points for range they ought to be entering their Bharat 52 in such competitions else it's pointless competing .
For a like comparison let's consider the ATHOS vs ATAGS case . Focusing on ATHOS let's consider the organisation producing it namely Soltam Systems. For Soltam Systems , ATHOS is merely one more product in their portfolio of similar guns which means compatibility which obviously translates into interchangeability owing to similar if not same design hence reduced input costs resulting in cheaper selling prices. For Bharat Forge / Kalyani & Tatas it's their first product .
Moreover , assuming Soltam Systems goes up against another OEM mfg howitzers the trick would be to sell the system at a loss if push comes to shove & earn thru sales of spares where anyone who's in the business of engineering goods whether light medium or heavy will tell you that no matter what the product is , spares sell for a minimum of 2x the price it costs if it were a sub system as part of the larger system during initial sale. In defense this minimum sales price of such spares would probably be 4x . That's how they cover up on whatever losses / reduced margins they make on initial sales of such systems.
Now IA / MoD are no chumps which is why I asked if anyone looked into the previous RFP where ATHOS was declared L1 some yrs back before the entire tender was scrapped.
Except for the breech mechanism & associated computerised system + automation everything else namely the barrels , tyres etc would be sourced locally . The trick in such cases is to identify critical elements & get a low down on their costs as spares along with the life cycle of such systems . I wonder if this was done in the previous tender which ATHOS won .
They should be adopting similar measures when it comes to tenders specifying indigenization percentages . What we get vide press reports ( knowing the quality of defence journalism in India the less said the better ) is 50% or 60% indigenization asked for without specifying in which areas.
If you were to go back to the above example of ATHOS itself if the ATHOS were selected , as per these bland terms of no LCC in the tender & 60% indigenization for example they'd happily offload barrel mfg to Kalyani who'd gladly accept such an order given their proven expertise & renown in forging quality products at extremely low prices while still making a fortune from the breech mechanism customised computerized system & sundry automation.
As PKS often says the devil lies in the details.
