SHAH ALAM: The Procurement Division of the Defence Ministry has issued a tender for the supply of sixteen one tonne utility truck for the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN). The tender was published on March 27 and closes on April 23.
The requirements called for a double cab truck with a seating capacity for five passengers. The 4X4 truck should be equipped with a 2.8 litre engine and an endurance of 450km. The specifications are very similar to the ones featured on the Toyota Hilux and Nissan Navarra pickups. Or any of the copycat Chinese made trucks as well.
Back in June 2023, RMN received two 2.4 litre Toyota Hilux pickups which was procured through barter trade.
The reason for the trucks:
There is a requirement to equip the Royal Malaysian Navy with a suitable transportation for non-operational task. At present, the Royal Malaysian Navy units are using operational vehicles such as one tonne truck for non-operational tasks. The utility van shall be deployed for all administrative tasks. The space provided shall be able to accommodate a driver, a co-driver and passengers with ergonomically designed for comfort.
It is interesting to note that the RMN is already equipped with a number of Hilux for various other duties so it will be the truck to beat in the competition. The estimated cost for the tender is RM3.4 million which translated to some RM215,000 per vehicle. A check on Toyota Malaysia website showed a similarly configured Hilux starts from RM159,080.
Meanwhile, the police is also looking for 20 4X4 pickup trucks for its bomb disposal unit. They are also looking for a similar vehicle like the RMN though the specifications called for a vehicle with engine not bigger than a 2.5 litre. A Hilux with an automatic transmission and a 2.4 litre is priced at RM120,080 before additional accessories.
The estimated cost for the 4X4 for the police is RM2.81 million which translates into RM140,500 per vehicle.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
So what awesome military class upgrades comes alongside that 30% markups?
“RM215,000 per vehicle. A similarly configured Hilux starts from RM159,080.”
Clean profits unless UMW Toyota is invited to tender as well, sure to win.
The PDRM truck looks more purposeful so likely will need customised storage bed. Imho this PDRM buy appears more worth the money considering addon cargo storage.
Yup the PDRM ones will have the polycarbonate cabin to cover the load bed. Note this is usually the quick respond unit, when they find actual stuff to dispose off, they will call for the Mercedes Sprinter vans which carry the EOD stuff.
Zaft – “ comes alongside that 30% markups?”
Unless there are companies whose goal is to provide services for the military as a public service; no intention to make a profit or recoup expenses.
“intention to make a profit or recoup expenses.”
If they did some value added service like PDRM EOD trucks then yeah there should be markups. But if it were (as I understand) unaltered just repainted trucks for TLDM then the markups are ridiculous as they could have got them from OEM UMW Toyota. Typically companies could buy them even cheaper at corporate rates compared to private customer prices that you see in the showroom.
@azlan
Its not the companies fault that MinDef paid 30% extra for what seem to be a paint jobs. It’s not a whole of gov problem either as the home ministry get modified hilux at almost off the shelf prices.
Good one for our navy while our dearest neighbour signed a contract with naval group to build/buy 2 scorpene evolved..3 Nagapasa + 2 Scorpene Evolved..5 Subs still not nearly enough for them but its getting there..Our southern beloved neighbour already fielding Invincible Class sub so yeah we dont have technological advantage anymore in this region
”If they did some value added service”
I’m not defending the practice of having local agents; merely pointing out to Zaft that the local agents are not doing what they do for charity; hence ”markups”. I’m also keenly aware of the fact that the majority of local agents do not provide any actual value; I’ve seen it for myself and have long complained about this here; as well as giving well known examples where local agents which were not in a sound position cocked things up to the detriment of the armed services and taxpayer.
Ultimately the local agents are doing what they’re allowed to do as per policy set by the government
There are healthy profits and then there are the ridiculous markups. One is acceptable the other is just robbing the taxpayer.
”One is acceptable the other is just robbing the taxpayer.”
If that’s how you want to put it. I’ll say it’s buggering the armed services and taxpayer and one reason why we’re stuck in the rut we are [failing to get the best value for what we spent] but then this has long been understood and in line with government policy.
Blaming gov policy is pointless since the police is getting a good deal for the same things IMHO.
I’ll leave it you to decide what you personally think is “pointless” but it was the government and only the government which created the conditions which enabled certain things to occur as policy. Now you can cite the police example but I can cite a litany of examples in which the MAF and taxpayer got short changed as a result of the policy as set by the government, one in which the interests of various other things take precedence over the needs of the armed services and taxpayer. This BTW is not my opinion or a @UMGO” thing but a fact. If in doubt ask Marhalim.
Govt policy that cause markups is partly due to the need to have very specific local companies involved in any deal – which limits the number of sellers thus less competitve pricing, and typically lead to rent-seeking pricing. If the majority of people here is OK with eliminating affirmative action in defense procurement, things may improve and do blame policy. If the people that keep blaming policies are not willing to support dropping affirmative action polices from defense procurement, no point blaming government policy. You reap what you sow.
kel – ”Govt policy that cause markups”
To put in in simple terms. The whole idea of granting local companies contracts was it would – ostensibly – benefit the local industry by enabling the companies to gain the needed know how to come up with their own solutions and by doing that to gradually reduce reliance on outsiders and by doing so generate funds which would contribute to the company. So the theory went but in reality very few companies did was it was hoped they’d do and a cynic and a realist would say that the system of patronage also enabled selected companies to prosper; to the detriment of the taxpayer and end user.
kel – ” If the people ”
I would presume that the definition of ”people” in this context includes you?
kel – ”no point blaming government policy. You reap what you sow”
Ta for the cliche but it was the government not some dark forces lurking in the shadows which introduced the policy we have now. One which has been highly damaging and self defeating.