Office ofthe Development Commissioner (MSME) Ministry … of Debriefing Meeting.pdf · Office ofthe Development Commissioner (MSME) Ministry ofMicro, Small and Medium Enterprises

Office of the Development Commissioner (MSME)Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

Government of India

TECHNOLOGY CENTRE SYSTEMS PROGRAMME (TCSP)

Dated: 27.01.2014

Technology Centre Systems Programme (TCSP) - Establishment of Programme

Management Unit (PMU) for designing the Project, Undertaking the Pre-project

activities and Providing Implementation Support during the course of the Project-

Debriefing Meeting.

Minutes of Debriefing Meeting held on is" January 2014.

The Debriefing Meeting was held on 15.01.2014 at 11:30 AM in the Office of the

Development Commissioner (MSME), Ministry of MSME, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi,

which was attended by the representatives of Consulting Firms, whose proposals could

not be selected for establishment of Programme Management Unit (PMU) for

Technology Centre Systems Programme (TCSP) and Officers of 0/0 DC (MSME). The

list of participants is given in Annexure A.

2. At the outset, Shri Ramesh K. Pandey, Joint Development Commissioner

welcomed the representatives of consulting firms and explained briefly about TCSP. He,

also, explained in detail about the consulting assignments that are going to come up under

TCSP in near future, such as Cluster Network Managerls, Technology Partnerls and IT

Service Provider.

3. Shri R.K. Rai, Director (Tool Room) explained in brief about the Governance

Framework of TCSP and circulated the first cut Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the

forthcoming Consultancy assignments mentioned in para 2 above for information of

Consulting firms attending the Debriefing Meeting, requesting them to provide inputs for

further improving them.

4. AS&DC (MSME) while conveying thanks to consulting firms for attending the

debriefing meeting explained the process adopted for selection of the consulting firm as

PMU. He further explained that Evaluation Committee was constituted comprising of

officers of this Office and General Managers of MSME Tool Rooms, who exhaustively

studied the proposals and evaluated individually by putting lot of time and efforts to

complete the process. The proposals evaluated by the Evaluation Committee were

scrutinised further by the Review Committee under the Chairmanship of AS&DC,

comprising of Shri S.N. Tripathi, Joint Secretary, Mlo MSME, Prof. Vinay Nangia,

Deptt. of Management Studies, lIT Roorkee, Shri Rajiv Chawla, President of Faridabad

Small Industries Association and Shri Deepak Bhardwaj, Member, India Smart Grid

Forum & Member, Programme Steering Committee (PSC). The Review Committee

asked the Evaluation Committee Members to explain the rationale for awarding of marks.

The Review Committee even revised marks (to downwards) in certain cases. AS&DC

(MSME) solicited their participation in the forthcoming consultancy assignments of

TCSP and advised them to go through the details and submit the proposals as and when

called for. The firm-wise explanation / reasons, given by AS&DC for proposals not

succeeding for PMU assignment ofTCSP are as given below:

(i) PricewaterhooseCooper Private Limited:

AS&DC (MSME) while explaining about PWC proposal mentioned that their firm

could score well in specific experience criteria, but failed considerably in criteria such as

understanding and proposed approach, methodology & work plan. The proposal also

lacked in addressing components like Cluster Network Manager and IT Service Platform.

He further highlighted that the CVs of 4 Key Experts (6.5 marks) could not be evaluated

for not meeting the qualification & experience requirements. The representatives of PWC

agreed to the observations recorded by the Evaluation / Review Committee.

2

(ii) GIZ-International Services:

AS&DC (MSME) informed GIZ representatives that their firm could not capitalise

upon the unique advantage they had by virtue of possessing MSME Technology Centres

Gap Analysis reports, conducted by Fraunhofer IPT under GIZ-MSME Umbrella

Programme. He also informed that though they could score reasonably well in criteria -

specific experience of Consultant relevant to the assignment and methodology & work

plan; they lacked in understanding of the Project, as their proposal did not elaborate

properly their role of Cluster Network Management Implementation and IT Platform

including National Portal. He further pointed out that the CVs of three Key Experts (6

marks) were not evaluated for not meeting the qualification & experience requirements.

The representatives of the firm accepted the shortcomings and agreed to the observations

recorded by the Evaluation / Review Committee.

(iii) KPMG Advisory Services Private Limited:

AS&DC (MSME) while explaining- about the proposal of KPMG, mentioned that

the firm could not understand the TCSP properly which resulted in inconsistent

mentioning of technology interventions through R&D Institutions, Industries and

Innovation. He further explained that the Cluster Network Management concept and

National Portal was not understood correctly and there was no mention about IT

Platform. He also pointed out that the major shortcoming in their proposal was that the

CVs of 10 key experts (for 26.5 marks) could not be evaluated for not meeting the

qualification & experience requirements. This criterion was evaluated for only 33.5

marks and as such the proposal scored 23.28 marks. A video clipping of the pre-proposal

conference held on 27.08.2013, was also shown to the consulting firms, wherein AS&DC

had categorically mentioned to the queries of GIZ and KPMG representatives that in case

any key expert does not possess requisite qualification & experience, his CV will not be

evaluated and would be awarded 'zero' marks. The representatives of the firm accepted

the shortcomings and agreed to the observations recorded by the Evaluation / Review

Committee.3

(iv) Accenture Services Private Limited:

AS&DC (MSME) while explaining the proposal of Accenture, appreciated the

quality of CVs of their proposed Key Experts as they obtained 50.16 marks against 60

under this criterion. Accenture submitted proposal individually, and was not having

experience of relevant Projects, as such the proposal scored relatively low under this

criterion. He further pointed out that the objectives and possible outcomes of the Project

were not understood adequately by them. The proposal mentioned about one of the

objectives of the Programme as development of course curriculum in collaboration with

ITls and polytechnics. Their understanding of the existing TCs was very poor as proposal

mentioned lack of advisory committee for TCs in specific Technology, which is factually

incorrect. He also explained that the issues such as Cluster Network Management

concept, National Portal and IT Platform were not understood properly and not

considered them as integral part of TCSP ecosystem. National Portal was considered

under Monitoring & Evaluation criteria by Accenture. He also pointed out that the Team

Leader for Phase I was not proposed to continue in Phase II. The representatives of the

firm agreed to the observations recorded by the Evaluation / Review Committee.

******************

4

Annexure A

Participants of the Debriefing Meeting

(1) Shri Amarendra Sinha, AS&DC (MSME), % DC (MSME)

(2) Shri M.P. Singh, ADC (MSME), % DC (MSME)

(3) Shri R.K. Pandey, JDC (MSME), % DC (MSME)

(4) Shri R.K. Rai, Director (Tool Room), % DC (MSME)

(5) Shri C.S.S. Rao, Deputy Director, % DC (MSME)

(6) Shri S. Maity, Managing Director, CTTC, Bhubaneswar

(7) Shri H.D. Kapse, General Manager, IGTR, Aurangabad

(8) Shri Chaman Lal, Director Projects, Mis. GIZ-IS

(9) Shri Stetan Schmid, regional Coordinator, Mis. GIZ-IS

(10) Shri Navin Agrawal, Partner, Mis. KPMG Advisory Services Private Limited

(11) Shri Tejinder Gupta, Manager, Mis. KPMG Advisory Services Private Limited

(12) Shri Anupam Gehane, assistant Manager, Mis. KPMG Advisory Services

Private Limited

(13) Shri Akhilesh Avanish, Mis. Accenture Services Private Limited

(14) Shri Ramendra Verma, Mis. Accenture Services Private Limited

(15) Shri Amit Sharma, Mis. PricewaterhouseCooper Private Limited

(16) Shri Rakesh Kaul, Mis. PricewaterhouseCooper Private Limited

~,\\-"'1;/

5