Re-Tender of the FIC?

CMN HS125 Interceptor. CMN

SHAH ALAM: Retender of the FDIC? In July last year, the Defence Ministry requested for bids for the procurement of fast interceptor craft (FIC) and maritime utility helicopters (MUH) for the RMN. We know that the MUH bid was cancelled shortly after that and was reissued shortly later with changes to bidders eligibility.

The FIC tender went ahead though it became apparent later that the industry was very unhappy about it. The matter was even raised in Parliament, with an MP asking why the FIC tender – as with the first MUH tender – was opened for bidding for suppliers instead manufacturers.

One of the FIC built by BYO Marine Sdn Bhd for APMM.

The issue came to head in December, last year when the matter – the FIC tender – was raised in a report with the Malaysian Anti Corruption Agency (MACC). The MACC head was reported on December 19 that the matter was being investigated.

RMN CB90 Combat boat

I am not purview to the MACC investigation but it appears that the industry was using it to push for a retender altogether. Whether or not the FIC deal will be retendered , I am told, will depend on the decision of the minister and his top civil servants. I am told that if a retender was called the number of FIC will be reduced to 16 though the budget remained at RM200 million. For more details on the FIC go here

Dockstavarvet 16 meter interceptor operated by Mexico.

Anyway based on inputs from my sources it appears that the RMN FIC has very similar specifications to the current in service CB90.The RMN FIC is to be armed with a 12.7mm caliber machine gun, to be operated remotely, and two light machine guns.

The interior of 16 meter interceptor of Dockstavarvet.

Whether or not there will be a retender for the FIC is beyond me at the moment. The matter I am told is being complicated further as the selected bidder is also pushing for the government to go ahead and award the tender to it or in the event that the tender is cancelled that it will be not be retendered but purchased by a government to government negotiations instead.

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

Share
About Marhalim Abas 1509 Articles
Shah Alam

9 Comments

  1. What I have been made to understand is that the RMN was trying to bend the rules laid out by the Finance Ministry for procurement. For a ship the size of the FIC, in accordance to the MOF policy, only Class E shipyards would be eligible to tender. What the RMN tried to do was reclassify the project as a supply contract with the intention to open up to more shipyards to be able to qualify. And therein lies the issue. The floodgates were open and I was informed thatthey received more than 80 offers (mostly from agents for overseas manufacturers).

    What the RMN should have done was get special approval from the MOF to open up the tender to all classes of shipyards on the basis that the value of the contract necessitated significantly more capable companies to be involved.

    Nevertheless, I look forward to a retender announcement. Heard that it is on the way…

  2. Trying to discuss with the current MoF is like trying to reason with a tantrum throwing kid. I feel maybe RMN should have a direct discussion with the PM instead, because the Defence Minister is also equally utterly useless like the Finance Minister.

    Reply
    I don’t think there would be an issue if the budget remains the same

  3. @ marhalim

    RMK11? That is great!

    Anyway do you know if these 16 new FIC is a direct replacement, or an addition to the current 5x CB90H and 12x CB90HEX? IMO the best option for commonality, experience and support would be to get a new batch of CB90 HSM to add to, or replace the current CB90H/HEX.

    http://esut.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Schweden-erh%C3%A4lt-neues-amphibisches-Kampfboot.jpg

    But i really dont mind if we get the Alucat M18 instead

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Jehu_U707_Lippujuhlan_p%C3%A4iv%C3%A4n_kalustoesittely_2016_7.JPG

    http://eraf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/M18-05.jpg

    Reply
    Yes the new FICs are likely direct replacements for the CB90s as these boats are maintenance intensive nowdays

  4. So some party won which didn’t jive with the wishes of the Government, and this caused them to cancel and retender again? And I guess this time with clearer requirements skewered to their preferred partners?

    Reply
    It’s the other way around

  5. Is the ones used by police inadequate for the navy? With proper RWS of course

    Reply
    I think it’s too small, the one RMN wanted is about the size of the CB90

  6. The FICs are intended to replace the CB-90s but the trick is to ensure that from a technical perspective; replacements are just as good or better than what they’re replacing. I’m all for buying local but not at the cost of sacrificing quality for the sake of buying local
    – some things we’ve bought local were just as good if better than foreign equivalents but some things were clearly inferior.

    It would be safe to assume that at minimum the following criteria gave to met – an OWS, at minimum the same level of sea keeping as the CB90s, the same range (including to reach Labuan from parts of the Spratlys) and endurance and a water jet with easily obtainable parts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*