Exactly what happened to local assembly of the Typhoon for Saudi Arabia. The local firm hadn’t even begun construction of the planned building by the time it should have started delivering aircraft. The subsequent negotiations were about how much more BAE should be paid for its extra work (i.e. assembly of 48 aircraft from the kits it had been preparing), not penalties for the failure of the local firm – which is what Dassault reckons it’d be on the hook for.
Swerve, it is apparent that you have read only Dassault’s half of the story. If any project is delayed, it could be due to a myriad of reasons. Ultimately the primary contractor is liable who in this case is Daassault. The primary contractor can shift the liability to secondary contractors/vendors when it gives them sub contracts. So Dassault can specify liability on HAL for delay on its part when they negotiate the contract with HAL. However, when they enter into a contract with IAF/MoD, they need to take on the liabilities for delay / non-performance.
Here, the situation is a bit complicated because HAL is the only subcontractor with ability to do the work. Hence Dassault would be forced to negotiate hard on this aspect. Which is what is happening now. The ultimate liability has to be on Dassault. If it is on HAL, the Dassault can wriggle out without transferring requisite expertise to HAL. And they are getting paid a large sum of money for that. The contract would be half the value if ToT was not there.
Sign In
