[NIC says]‘We influence lives of millions of Indians’-[For what? CORRUPTION]

NIC says ::  ‘We influence lives of millions of Indians’ –

for WHAT ???

CORRUPTION in INDIA ???

NIC has joined hands with NISG, eGov Secretary, eGov Jt. Secretary, Addl. eGovernance Secretary to spread CORRUPTION in eGovernance of INDIA.

By T AshishThursday, 21 April , 2005, 12:54

National Informatics Centre (NIC), an organisation of the Department of Information Technology (DIT) under the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (MCIT), is all set to go for an “e-procurement system” for handling tenders for goods, services and engineering contracts.
Being a premier organisation in the field of informatics services and IT applications, NIC has been instrumental in steering ICT applications in government departments at central and states, improving decentralised planning and management. NIC has already established a nationwide ICT network � NICNET known as the Government Network � with gateway nodes at all central government departments, covering all 602 district collectorates for IT services.
The driving force behind the NIC is none other than Dr N Vijayaditya, Director-General, who has recently been honoured with the Skoch Challenger-2005 Award for ICT Man of the Year by Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, for his contribution and exemplary efforts made in various areas including e-governance and ICT applications. Excerpts from an interview:
NIC has been instrumental in steering ICT applications in the government. What are its objectives?
Since its inception in 1977, NIC has been instrumental in steering ICT applications in the government at Central and State level. Following the directions from the Prime Minister’s Office, the organisation expanded its nationwide ICT network to North East and Jammu & Kashmir, increasing its network to all districts in the country.
The long-term objective of the NIC, as approved by the Planning Commission, Ministry of Finance and the Electronics Commission, is to establish the feasibility of a system for the provision of detailed information to government ministries and agencies to assist them in making decisions relating to the country�s economic and social development planning and program implementation. Missed last week’s Thursday Interview? Click here

The NIC was set up with the objective to promote economic, social scientific and technological activities, and also for macro-economic adjustment program of the Government, through the applications of IT.
Can you share some of NIC�s national project and state-level projects?
NIC has conceptualised, developed and implemented a very large number of projects for various central and state government ministries, department and organisations.
Many of these projects are continuing projects being carried out by various divisions of NIC across the country, touching upon all spheres of e-governance and thereby influencing the lives of millions of citizens of India.
Some prestigious projects include: Agricultural Marketing Information Network (AgmarkNet), Central Passport System (CPS), Community Information Centres (CICs), Computerised Rural Information System Project (CRISP), Court Information System (COURTIS), Department of Agriculture Network (DACNET), Land Records Information System, Land Records Information System (LRIS), Public Grievances Redress and Monitoring System (PGRAMS). The NIC has undertaken several e-government projects, including online secretariat in Karnataka.
What are your focus areas for this year?
NIC is focusing on a few areas, including e-procurement, GIS, and security. After initial process, the organisation has finalised an e-procurement solution from C1 India. We will soon deploy the solution in our existing system. We are also giving equal importance to GIS and security.

You have been selected for the ICT Man of the Year Award. Can you share your views on this?
I am happy to receive the award from Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission. Skoch is a multinational Strategy and Management Consultancy Company working towards ICT led competitive advantage India possesses across segments.
Every year, Skoch confers the Challenger Awards to people, projects, organisations & technologies that went the extra mile and made an impact in India’s ICT led competitive advantage.
The award recognises and acknowledges excellence and exemplary efforts made by individuals and organisations for their contribution in key areas such as e-governance, BFSI, academic excellence, ICT penetration, affordable computing & innovation.
Every year hundreds of �best-in-class� contenders compete for recognition at the Challenger Awards.
________________________________

WHAT ACTIONS NIC has taken in DGS&D – C1 eProcurement ?
What role NIC has played in the eProcurement
____________________________________

Re: [eGovINDIA] DGS&D – C1 eProcurement contracts under investigation /

[eGovINDIA] DGS&D – C1 eProcurement contracts under investigation

“E. Verwalten” <everwalten@gmail.com> wrote:

Indian Express Investigation 30th March 2008
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/290086.html

Indian Express Investigation 8th April 2008
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/293851.html

_______________________________________________

Pls read this artlicle about C1 india chief Mr.Suresh Nanda!!!!

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20010316/ian16051.html

Nanda is the name of the game

________________________________

The following article was published in the below mentioned URL, please
go through the same.

http://www.business-standard.com/search/storypage_new.php?leftnm=lmnu1&leftindx=1&lselect=1&autono=185604

More interesting articles......!!!!

... According to Jain, Suresh Nanda of the Crown Corporation paid them
 Rs.one crore
for the help in getting the order of 250 Armored Recovery Vehicles for
 a ... 

www.ganashakti.com/old/2001/010326/nation1.htm 

...........As soon as he became the defence minister, after six or
 seven months� TEHELKA:
Okay. RK JAIN: Suresh Nanda approached me for armoured recovery
 vehicle. ...
www.tehelka.com/home/20041009/operation/investigation21.htm 

... NEW DELHI, March 10: A city court today granted two weeks to police
 to file reply
to an application of Suresh Nanda, father of the main accused Sanjeev
 Nanda ...
www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990311/ige11025.html 

... The chargesheet says that Sanjiv Nanda, son of arms dealer Suresh
 Nanda was accompanied by Manik Kapoor when the former's BMW car killed
 six persons including ...
www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990409/ige09182.html

____________________________________________________

eProcurement Case Background

1. October 2000
Information Technology Act 2000 was passed. Use of 128 Bit SSL & Digital
Certificate made mandatory for ecommerce activities. As per IT ACT 2000 for
any electronic document to be legally valid, it should be digitally signed by
Digital Certificate issued by any Liscensed Certifyign Agency (CA) approve by
Controller of Certifying Agency (CCA).

2. September 2001
Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) Core implementation committee was
formed to implement eProcurement and PWC (Price water house coopers was
appointed as consultant). They were paid Rs. 1.75 Cr for 5 projects, approx Rs. 35Lakh/Project as consultancy fee. Ref. pwc hired as consultant.pdf.

3. Feb 2002
CCA granted license to Safescrypt on 5th February, 2002, India’s first CA.
SAFESCRYPT Ltd, a Satyam Infoway company affiliated with VeriSign Inc,
issued the country’s first digital signature certificate to the Minister for
Communications and IT & Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Pramod Mahajan, at an
official ceremony here on Wednesday.
SafeScrypt is the first Indian company to get a certifying authority licence for
digital signature from the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA). The
company received this licence earlier this week.

4. In Feb 2002,
Department of Public Relation, Madhya Pradesh floated a tender for eTendering,
eProcurement which categorically specified that IT ACT 2000 needs to be
complied and Digital Certificate/SSL/PKI should be used to ensure secrecy of
price bid. No MNC consultant appointed to draft tender document. 5 Companies
participate in the same including Applitech Tenercity.com I Pvt. Ltd (Tendercity),
NexTenders, ITI/Antares, CNet, etc.

5. May 2002
Sometime in May 2002, GoAP floated a Tender for eProcurement software more
specifically eTendering and Reverse Auction engine by Govt. of AP. No mention
of PKI/SSL/Digital Certificate � what was Rs. 35 Lakh paid to then to PWC?

6. Mid 2002
Out of many bidders who had submitted the tender a consortium comprising of
C1 India Pvt. Ltd., Microsoft & Antares System Ltd & Compaq had submitted the
bid. Other bidders included companies like Wipro and consortium of Boradvision
and TCS. Consortium head by C1 India Pvt. Ltd (C1) won the tender. GoAP
approves rate of Rs.4500/Tender (GoAP Pays) & 0.24% of the Tender Value
(winning bidder pays to C1 India Directly)

7. In June 2002,
GoAP enters into a secret agreement with C1 India to do a pilot project and not
the consortium which had won the contract? WHY?

8. On 29 th Jan 2003,
www.eprocurement.gov.in launched without compliance to IT ACT 2000, Digital
Certificate, PKI. GoAP gives lame excuse that since Digital Certificates are not
available, hence the same was not integrated in spite of the fact that first Digital
Certificate was issued to Shri. Promod Mahajan as early as Feb 2002.
What started as a Pilot Project for nine months, gets extended for another 9
month unilaterally in spite of the fact that system did not comply to IT ACT
2000.

9. Jan 2003
C1 India gets a 128 bit SSL Certificate from Verisign for
www.eprocurement.gov.in domain? WHY?
1.) .gov.in domain belongs to only government organizations, how come the same was issued to a private company.
2.) 128 Bit SSL was procured from a US Company, whereas IT Act mandates that it should be procured only from liscensed CA. Why was the same not procured from TCS, Safescrypt.
3.) TCS, Safescrypt would have never issued a 128 Bit SSL certificate to C1 India Pvt. Ltd, as .gov.in domain belongs to only Govt. departments. A US company issued the same without any verification, because they were interested in dollars.

10. March 2003
PWD, Chhattisgarh floats a tender for eTendering with Department of Public
Relations, Madhya Pradesh specifications.
Tendercity, C1 India, Wipro, Antares/ITI, Nex Tener & other 3 companies
participated in the tender. Tender gets awarded to NexTender, a mumbai based
company in spite of Tendercity Being the lowest Bidder.

11. April 2003
C1 quotes to PWD, Chhattisgarh Rs. 1000/Tender as fix service charge
irrespective of Tender Value & No fee to be paid by PWD, Chhattisgarh?
Tendercity shares the same information with GoAP. GoAP calls for a steering
committee and yet no action is taken to revise fee being paid to C1 India i.e.
Rs. 4500/Tender (GoAP pays) & 0.24% of Tender Value (winning bidder pays)

12. July 2003
The first lawsuit under Indian cyber law, Antares Systems Ltd, the Bangalore-
based IT firm, has filed a case against an e-governance project in the Delhi High
Court for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and unfair
competition. The case has been filed against C1 India Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of
Nasdaq-listed CommerceOne. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Principal
Secretary, Department of IT and Communications, AP have been arraigned as
parties.
Antares has urged the Delhi HC that C1 India and the AP Government be
restrained from infringing its copyright in its e-tendering software product
Tenderwizard and from relying upon, in any manner whatsoever, the features of
Tenderwizard, said the company’s Senior Vice-President, Mr R. Kamath.

13. July 2003
India’s First Digitally Singed eTender was enabled by Tendercity for Madhya
Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd, Madhya Pradesh Electrictiy
Board, MP (MPPKVVCL, MPSEB,MP). 10 Digital Certificates (TCS) were
issued to contractors across India.

14. December, 2003
Northern Railway floats a Tender for eTendering. C1 India, Wipro/NexTender,
Antares, HCL, Tendercity Participated in the tender. Tender awarded to
HCL/Boradvision Consortium. Rate approved Less than Rs.1500/Tender. GoAP
takes no action and does not revise the service fee it pays to C1 India.

15. Feb 2004
Tendercity writes letter to IT Secretary, GoAP, and Principle Secretary GoAP and bring to their notice that PKI compliance is not there on eprocurement.gov.in and that the eTendering services available at a very competitive rates in open market. No Action taken by the GoAP Officers.

16. Mid 2004
On PWC recommendations, JV option was dropped (JV between eTendering
service provider and Government of AP) and eProcurement services was
continued to be used in ASP model
Why did PWD suggested not to go ahead with JV option? probably because in
case of JV Government of AP would have made a lot of money? Total fee
reimbursed by GoAP & Various Bidder to C1 India in last 3 years is in tune of
Crores of Rupees. If GoAP had procured the software, it would have costed
Rs. 0, because that what C1/PWC quoted to NIC, in December 2004 for
eTendering Software.

17. July 2004
GoAP steering committee meets in October, 2004. Price bid revised to as follows w.e.f. 1 st April 2004 as follows
- GoAP pays nothing � i.e. Rs. 4,500/Tender waived off
- For Tender<50 Cr � each participating bidder pays 0.04% of Tender value or
Rs.10,000/Tender as processing fee, which ever is higher.
- For Tender>50 Cr � each participating bidder pays 0.04% of Tender value or
Rs.25,000/Tender as processing fee, which ever is higher.
- Still the same is very very high compared to open market rates. GoAP Continues with C1 India, when the contract though an illegal contract.
- GoAP accepts non compliance of IT ACT 2002 and yet gives C1 India 6 month
period to make their product PKI enabled, by March 2005. Why, was the project
not scrapped in then and then itself till the PKI compliance was not complete.

18. December 2004
PWC Partners with C1 India for NIC tender for eTendering.
Having played a instrumental role in causing great exchequer loss of GoAP, by
recommending ASP Mode, C1 India reward PWC with partnership for NIC
Tender. C1 ditched PWC (presumably) by quoting Rs.0 as software price to
NIC.

19. 1st April 2005
Digital certificates made mandatory from April 2005. Digital certificate are used
only of Authentication purpose at time of Login. Only price bids are digitally
signed and leaving room for service provider to tamper with technical bids,
document uploaded, etc.

20. Mid 2005
Tendercity alleges of eProcurement scam in one of the reply it filed in Delhi
High Court. The same document is shared with various AP departments, but no
action is taken.

21. 24 thNovember 2005,
Tendercity demonstrate to IT Secretary Shri Narsing Roa, the loopholes and
security defects in www.eprocuremnet.gov.in in person in his chamber. IT
Secretary assures that proper action will be taken against the culprits.
Tendercity gets an invitation from HUDA for demonstration of security loopholes
in the system but the same is postponed by CE after a brief 5 minute meeting.
Reason for postponement not specified. Subsequent meeting doe not take place.

22. 3rdDecember, 2005
Tendercity demonstrates to Principle Secretary & MD APTS the security
loopholes in www.eprocuremnet.gov.in and ideal security features that should be
enabled. Principle Secretary IT&C promise to take the appropriate action.

23. 5th December, 2005
GoAP accepts vide their email dated 5 th December, 2005 that
1.) www.eprocurement.gov.in is property of GoAP
2.) GoAP sees no harm if a 128 Bit SSL Certificate has be procured from USA
instead from a licensed CA as per CCA norms and that too by C1 India. In
layman terms it means a private company owns www.eprocurement.gov.in
3.) GoAP accepts that till December 2005, price bid submitted by 10,000 of
contractors 9800 eTender enabled so far reached the server in readable fashion
without any encryption, but that OK. It’s public money and it can go down the
drain.
4.) GoAP accepts that only C1 India can access the Price bid of contractors, as
they are the system administrator and super Admin of the website. Since no
government office has access to database, and generally they are corrupt the
system is secure. As per GoAP, private company which has been given the
custody of Rs.32,000 Cr. worth of eTender price bid security are trustworthy and
walking gods.
5.) GoAP states that C1 India does not access the readable price bid of all
contractors that is there in Database, and which can be accessed by C1 India
anytime from anywhere. GoAP goes on record that since not a single case of
tampering has been raised, there is nothing wrong with present system and they
have full faith on C1 India. They have full faith on PWC, so what if they partner
with C1 India for other government departments.
6.) GoAP does not care about Antares software being illegally used, since the
matter is sub-judice.
7.) GoAP has accepted that the system was so insecure, that had they told the
contactors and public at large about the security loopholes, no contractor would
have submitted the bid and hence all contractors, public, government officers
were kept in dark about the security loophole.
8.) GoAP has accepted that Detached Signature and Server Side encryption are
international practice as per their MNC consultant PWC, so what if C1 India get
the privilege to access the price bid of each and every contractors.

24. 10 th December, 2005
To cover things up, IT Secretary gives a clean chit to Service provider � C1 India
by means of issuing unsigned certificate making a claim that there is nothing
wrong with the system.
__________________________________

Please read this article.

The E-governance Muddle http://www.dqindia.com/content/search/showarticle.asp?artid=74532

What was expected to bring transparency in government transactions has got mired in a slew of allegations. Dataquest probes the charges made by an IAS officer against his own clan� Shubhendu Parth Friday, September 02, 2005

_________________________________

LOOK at this what NIC has done !!!!!

NIC nexus with C1 INDIA, PWC,

1. In the prequalification criteria Page no.2, item no 2 (VI) NIC said that �the vendor or the prime bidder in the case of consortium should be CMM level 4 or ISO 9000-3 certified�.  (Please note that there is no certification called ISO 9000-3 in this world and it is only the guidelines for software companies.  Through this ITI which has deployed more than 20 eProcurement projects across the country has been prevented from participating in the tender) .
2. Apparently ITI Limited a PSU under MCIT has made a representation to NIC stating that the prequalification criteria is wrong and ITI should be allowed to participate in the tender which has been refused by NIC orally.

3. Further STQC experts also informed that the prequalification criteria is wrong.

4. Without listening to the STQC and ITI, NIC went ahead and executed the tender for eProcurement.

5. Interestingly (??) the consortium of PWC and C1 bagged the order form NIC.

6. How beautiful and professional this entire transaction is:

– The PWC who is the consultant to GOAP is the Prime bidder of Consortium.

- The C1 which bagged the project from GOAP through the recommendations of PWC is the consortium partner.

- Though the pre-qulaification criteria was wrong and ITI as well as STQC have submitted the note to this effect, NIC went ahead and awarded the tender to PWC & C1 consortium.

- Now the NIC along with PWC and C1 can go to any state/central/ PSU and deploy eProcurement project to enhance transparency (??). however there is no transparency in the NIC’s Procement itself?

Now my questions are:

Can NIC Put a wrong Qualification criteria to prevent their own sister concern ITI Limited and do not respond to the representation made by ITI Limited?</ SPAN> Can a consultant (PWC) become the supplier (PWC & C1 consortium)? When a consultant (PWC) recommends some company (C1 ) for the award (in GOAP), can the consultant (PWC) join with the same company (PWC) for another project (NIC) as supplier. Interstingly PWC (Consultant of GOAP project) is also a deployment partner of the C1 (Visit http:// www.c1india. com/partners/ partners. html#)

5. How to put an end to such nonsenses ?

6. Whether NIC is obligated to reply ITI letter or not? NIC can neglet the letter of ITI just like that? Is the legal battle is only the remedy? Is there any authority who can parade these officials on open road puting a necklace of “corrupt officer”?
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ____

NIC nexus with C1 INDIA, PWC, -Is there TRANSPARENCY in NIC activities ?

NIC nexus with C1 INDIA, PWC,

LOOK at this what NIC has done !!!!!

NIC nexus with C1 INDIA, PWC,

1. In the prequalification criteria Page no.2, item no 2 (VI) NIC said that �the vendor or the prime bidder in the case of consortium should be CMM level 4 or ISO 9000-3 certified�.  (Please note that there is no certification called ISO 9000-3 in this world and it is only the guidelines for software companies.  Through this ITI which has deployed more than 20 eProcurement projects across the country has been prevented from participating in the tender) .
2. Apparently ITI Limited a PSU under MCIT has made a representation to NIC stating that the prequalification criteria is wrong and ITI should be allowed to participate in the tender which has been refused by NIC orally.

3. Further STQC experts also informed that the prequalification criteria is wrong.

4. Without listening to the STQC and ITI, NIC went ahead and executed the tender for eProcurement.

5. Interestingly (??) the consortium of PWC and C1 INDIA bagged the order form NIC.

6. How beautiful and professional this entire transaction is:

– The PWC who is the consultant to GOAP is the Prime bidder of Consortium.

- The C1 INDIA which bagged the project from GOAP through the recommendations of PWC is the consortium partner.

- Though the pre-qulaification criteria was wrong and ITI as well as STQC have submitted the note to this effect, NIC went ahead and awarded the tender to PWC & C1 consortium.

- Now the NIC along with PWC and C1 INDIA can go to any state/central/ PSU and deploy eProcurement project to enhance transparency (??). however there is no transparency in the NIC’s Procement itself?

Now questions to NIC are:

Can NIC Put a wrong Qualification criteria to prevent their own sister concern ITI Limited and do not respond to the representation made by ITI Limited?

Can a consultant (PWC) become the supplier (PWC & C1 consortium)?

When a consultant (PWC) recommends some company (C1 ) for the award (in GOAP), can the consultant (PWC) join with the same company (PWC) for another project (NIC) as supplier.

Interstingly PWC (Consultant of GOAP project) is also a deployment partner of the C1 (Visit http:// www.c1india. com/partners/ partners. html#)

5. How to put an end to such nonsenses ?

6. Whether NIC is obligated to reply ITI letter or not? NIC can neglet the letter of ITI just like that?

Is the legal battle is only the remedy?

Is there any authority who can parade these officials on open road puting a necklace of “corrupt officer”?
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ____

Security Checks to be maintained in e-Procurement as recommended by Indian IT Act 2000

Security Checks to be maintained in e-Procurement as recommended by Indian IT Act 2000

Dear eGovINDIA Group Members,

Please find below an academic detail as how Online Bidding should be secure and Transparent:-

(Andhra Pradesh to be investigated if e-Procurement is fulfilling these Security Features for Rs. 15000/- Crore of e-Procurement done)

An ideal eTendering/eProcurement application should comply with Information Technology Act 2000 in totality. To ensure that you existing eTendering/eProcurement application meets the above requirement, please check if it fulfills the security features checklist mentioned below.

1.      Simple Login ID & Password based Login

eTendering website should have dual authentication process i.e.

Login ID and Password based authentication &
Digital Certificate based authentication.

It is very easy for the service provider to retrieve Login ID & Password of any user form the database, if the same is not stored as it format as explained in point no. 2.

The existing application you are using does not have Digital Certificate based login, which means the service provider could log in any time as any bidder/buyer and view/modify/delete/ any data as he liked. Why has Digital Certificate based login system not been adopted on www.eprocurement.gov.in?

2.      MD5 Hash of password are stored in Database and not actual password

If password are stored in database in plain text format in database, then it is very easy for the service provider to know the Login ID & Password of any user. Storing the message digest of a password instead of the plain text password in the database is a universally accepted security best practice.

Message Digest/hash is basically a digital fingerprint of password generated using Hash Algorithm. For eg. Message Digest of a password like Apple is 9f6290f4436e5a2351f12e03b6433c

3c.

The beauty of Hash algorithm is that every time Apple with capital A is typed from anywhere in the world, it will result in same Message Digest/Hash. Also Message Digest/Hash is irreversible i.e. from 9f6290f4436e5a2351f12e03b6433c3c no one can know that the original password i.e. Apple. The only person on the world to know the actual password is the person who specifies at time of Login ID creation.

Are passwords converted to message digest before being stored in your eTendering site? If not, why? This technology is a more than a decade old and is so secure that it has not been cracked so far.

3.      Digitally Signed Bids

As per IT ACT 2000, all Bids submitted by bidders should be digitally signed.  Please check if the bid that are submitted by your bidders are digitally signed and submitted on you eTendering website.

A Bid that is not digitally signed can be easily viewed and tampered with by the service provider. If the bidder whose bid has been tampered puts any allegation on the service provider, there is no way it can be proved that service provider had not tampered the bid. If the bids are digitally signed, and if the same are tampered, it can be detected easily.

IT ACT 2000 was in place since 2000, Digital Certificate were publicly available since 2002 and first digitally signed eTender was enabled in July 2003 in India. Why did your service provider not integrate Digital Certificates till March 2005. Why did the most IT savvy state of Andhra Pradesh not integrated Digital Certificates for eTendering as mandated in IT ACT 2000.

Why did the government of AP allow a service provider who didn’t have PKI enabled (Digital Certificate enabled) eTendering application to offer eTendering services to various government departments?

4.      Access to price bid before Tender due date.

Ideally the bid submitted by Bidders should be first digitally signed and encrypted before it is submitted on the eTendering website. Bid encryption (data enveloping) should be as per IT ACT 2000. In this process the Bid are digitally signed and encrypted using digital certificate.

The benefits of Digital Certificate based encryption is that it cannot be deciphered by service provider. Only the individual whose Digital Certificate is used for encryption, can decipher it.

In case of Andhra Pradesh as till March 2005 Digital Certificate were not used, why?

How were price bids being encrypted? By using which technology? Did that technology have legal credibility?

If encryption was done using some proprietary tool, then the existing service provider  could very well decipher and know the bids of all bidders even before due date and time of opening.

So far Rs. 15,000 cr. worth of eTendering that has been done enabled on www. eprocurement.gov.in, what is the assurance that there was no malpractise like viewing price bids before due date and time, as well as modifying price bids after due date and time?

5.      Biometric Based Authentication

To ensure that Buyer was present at time of Tender Opening, biometric based authentication is very crucial. As eTendering is a web based technology, privilege users like administrator can access any content. The biometric device restricts this access to the authorised persons from the buyer side to access the website.

6.      128 Bit SSL

The data that is exchanged between Bidders (client) and Website (sever) should happen over a secure network such that hackers cannot hack the data in transit and read/tamper the data.  For the same, as per IT ACT, 128 SSL certificate should be used.

To detect whether any malpractice took place, as well as to take effective steps to ensure that further malpractices are not possible, we suggest that you take proactive steps to institute an internal inquiry as well as undertake a comprehensive security audit of the eTendering system you have been using.  Taking such a step will protect your interests.  If you require, we can undertake this audit for you, free of cost.  We will check if the security features are in place, including 25 security checks as per the IT Act 2000.  It is also in your interests to refrain from using the current eTendering system till either it is given a clean chit or the security issues identified are corrected.

NIC Come Forward to ensure Public Fund Trusteeship, investigate on current e-Tendering

Dear egovINDIA Group Members,

It is a very serious concern on our serious efforts towards bringing in e-Governance to its Best Form in India. Bangalore One and a lot others, the main Culprit is being our Tendering Procedure, let us first investigate if our e-Governance initiative in its first stage of e-Procurement is appropriate or If We are Plinthing the Curruption Tower by way of e-Governance (e-Tendering).

“Does E-tendering is to fool the state, rob the people and go scot free.”

The functioning of the state is based on a strong process of checks and balances. This ensures that the state never makes prejudiced decisions.  This also ensures that the dealings of the state are always free, fair and transparent.

One process of the state is procurement.  The state is rarely subject to economic cycles of recession.  Even when the rest of the economy is reeling under recession, the state is still buying.  The procurement activity of the state is strictly guided by procedures such as tendering.  The process of tendering ensures that the state gets the best deal at the same time as allowing all qualified businesses to bid.

In the process of becoming all pervasive, information technology did not take long to come up with an eprocurement application.  The eprocurement applications targetted to the states procurement requirements are also known as eTendering applications.

Leveraging information technology for the states procurement process is a good thing.  It results in all the well known benefits of arising from application of information technology, lowered costs, increased efficiency, faster decision cycles, paperless, and so on.

But there are two important clauses of the tendering process.  All bids must be submitted in sealed envelopes, which are opened in presence of the participating bidders.  The wisdom of this is obvious.  The state cannot favour any particular bidder.  All the pages on the bids must be signed.  Again, the wisdom is obvious.  A page with a signature at the bottom gives essential legal sanctity to the document, and ties the signer with the statements on that page.

These were the hurdle seen by honest people, both in the government and in the solution provider space, in introducing information technology in the tendering process.  With efforts of these people, the parliament passed the Information Technology Act, 2000 on 9th June 2000.

In words of the Controller of Certifying Authorities (http://cca.gov.in):

Creating trust in electronic environment involves assuring the transacting parties about the integrity and confidentiality of the content of documents along with authentication of the sending and receiving parties in a manner that ensures that both the parties cannot repudiate the transaction. The paper based concepts of identification, declaration and proof are carried through the use of digital signatures in electronic environment. Digital signatures, a form of electronic signatures, are created and verified using Public Key Cryptography that is based on the concept of a key pair generated by a mathematical algorithm, the public and private keys.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides the required legal sanctity to the digital signatures based on asymmetric cryptosystems. The digital signatures are now accepted at par with handwritten signatures and the electronic documents that have been digitally signed are treated at par with paper documents.

With the passage of the IT Act, 2000, etendering could become a reality in this country.  Since the provisions of the act could be applied to the two important clauses of tendering.  The electronic bids could now be signed as well as sealed.

In absence of these measures, the following things could happen:

The bids submitted by a bidder could be viewed, by anyone who has access to the system where the bids are stored.  This is more incriminating the service provider rather than the state.  The service provider could have a nexus with a bidder to ensure that the bidder could get a report on who submitted which bid.
The bids submitted by a bidder could be modified.  This also incriminates the service provider more that it does the state.  The service provider could change the bid of a bidder.
A bidder can claim that the bid he submitted is not the bid being viewed, meaning that his bid was tampered with afte he submitted it.  This allegation, whether real or not, would jeopardise the careers of many honest state employees at the same time create ripples in the political arena.

If we look at the scale of procurement by the state, we will see figures like Rs. 15,000 crores in about 2 years.    Calculate, if you can, 1% of 15,000 crores.  Now all those who feel that the services providers of etendering applications not using digital certificates, and all their employees, were completely ethical at all times, raise your hands.

We need to get a full scale investigation and audit on all the tenders processed through all the etendering application which did not use digital certificates.

The state was definitely fooled, but if the people were robbed, the robbers should not get away scot free.

Please also refer my earlier postings on the same subject and be transparent to comment, i`m ready to rectify me if shared more lights on the subject, but it is of very serious concern to our Nation and Growth ( Just by purifying our Public Procurement System we can graduate to 4 times of our current Growth pattern ).

Shocking to know that NIC can also leverage to play with Public Fund in name of deployment of e-Governance & e-Procurement

I Invite eGovINDIA Group attention on implementing the Basic step towards e-Governance is to

1. Publish all Tendering Procedures at least initially in space of e-Governance.

2. There was a Tender from DOIT&C, Rajashthan for requirement of e-Procurement application Software for entire state. They had published the draft RFP and invited suggestion from all concerns for one month later they concluded and finalized it with a rock bottom price of The Best e-Procurement Application software with source code, Time will speak. We should appreciate the DOIT&C style of working, DOIT&C has got a professional style of working and you will find their dedication and hardworking attitude to bring in Transparency, We need several contributor like them for our e-Governance initiative. NIC should take a lesson out of it towards Transparency.

3. NIC had also invited a Tender far earlier compared to DOIT&C but appears to be working like NISG or in line of Bangalore One.

4. If you visit www.eprocurement.gov.in you will find that Andhra Pradesh is to implement ver2 of e-Procurement software and now it will be PKI enabled and will use Digital Signature and hence comply by Indian IT Act 2000. This Act is in existent since when e-Procurement in Andhra Pradesh was started, why this violation of security Breach and an open space to play around and conduct misappropriation with Public Fund (Rs. 15000/- Crore). Is their CVC, Act implementors, Technology experts like NISG, APTS, Deptt of IT, A.P. is not aware. A very serious concern of Public Fund utilization. Should it not be investigated and why the open Violation of IT Act is being egnored. In turn another Service Provider in India had enabled first e-Tender using Digital Signature in July 2003 (ensuring that technology was available)

5. I`m attaching few write ups for your attention and few documents for your ready refrence

6. I`m writing this to consider your concern and great expectation from NIC so as by us also, me do have very high regards and respect for NIC and its contribution in bringing us at par with any developed countries in space of ICT, but with this we should not loose our Grip and Accountability towards our Nation in Building Robust.

7. A brief on the Tendering Procedure for the same e-Procurement software invited by NIC for your reveiew. This award appears to be at a very exorbitant price, as we have already had a lot discussion in our group about the misuse of Public Fund in Andhra Pradesh, and also to remind you it is evident that NISG appears to be Mentor to C1 (Wellknown fact), i pray if NIC should not be, the following points will clarify:

Shocking to know that NIC can also leverage to play with Public Fund in name of deployment of e-Governance & e-Procurement

This is in reference to the article published on the website:

http://sify.com/news/thethursdayinterview/fullstory.php?id=13723365

stating that NIC is all set to go for an eProcurement system. We were actually waiting a good and transparent initiative from NIC to minimize the unfair practices in Public Procurement System and thus help Central Vigilence Commission who depends on NIC for ICT initiatives. The Tendering process of NIC for awarding the e-Procurement Application Software work order itself does not fulfil transparency and due diligence in finalizing a very sensitive IT application which can play around with much suffered and much needed Public Fund for over all Growth of our Nation.

Few points to be highlighted about the said procedure, check the same and set up a review commiittee and avoid doing a sin with Public Fund.

1. On what grounds, parameters proposed Vendors were shortlisted and Qualified or disqualified?

2. It was evidence that The Technical Reveiew Committee comprising of 7-8 members were not present during the Technical presentations? only 2-3 were present of the core committee members only and rest could have managed to get the signature on minutes of meeting later? This shows seriousness and concern of an Organization like NIC about the belief in Transparent Public Procurement System

3. The Technical Committee members visited Onsite places like Assam & Andhra Pradesh to review the existing system of the Vendors proposed e-Procurement application but not with all other qualified vendors during Technical evaluation? Why?

4. As per the News C1 was selected as awarded is very much schocking for one single reason, in the Tender Requirement, Security aspects were mandatory as per Indian IT Act 2000, and at that point of time in Andhra Pradesh the use of Digital Signature was not in place (It is to be effected from 1st march 2005 onwards, see www.eprocurement.gov.in) , had the Technical Committee members dream out about its availability(Obvious as they could be sleeping). A serious concern, this mockery with Indian IT Act 2000 is a issue before Government of Andhra Pradesh and our honourable court to notice if openly Acts could be taken for ride even on the concern of serious misapproapriation with Public Fund.

5. The other partner PWC alongwith C1 had its bad name in practicising unethical and non-Transparent practices for Public Procurement System as the case is pending in court about “Transmission Right of Cricket Match, tender invited by BCCI)

6. It is evident first by selecting a very expensive application to profit service provider is again a misappropriation with Public Fund, second compromising on Security aspect is to Lead abundant misappropriation with Public Fund in future and top of the same with duly certified by NIC. (We suggest NIC as being qualified and working since 1976 in favor of nation should first do a Security Audit for about Rs. 15000/- crore worth of Procurement done in Andhra Pradesh and also take cognizence as why An Indian Act (IT Act 2000) was Violated and then decide who is been chosen to trigger the National Growth.

7. Can i ask NIC to publish the detailed Tendering Procedure?

8. Similar case again had happened with DGS&D for selecting C1 to be the e-Procurement service provider, If DGS&D can publish details about selection procedure?

9. MCD had recently invited a Tender for e-Procurement on ASP basis and can you believe the final order is at what price, schoking price of Rs. 500/- per Tender and that is too from a respectful company ie; Wipro, so it is evident that e-Procurement is available at bottom price, so should it not be misaprropriation with the Public Fund.

10. I invite eGovINDIA Group attention in these lines so as of Dr N Vijayaditya

NIC joined hands with C 1 INDIA in eProcurement Scandle along with NISG, DIT and Govt. of INDIA !! READ THIS:: NIC eProcurement project irregularities in INDIA ???

NIC has joined hands with C 1 INDIA in eProcurement Scandle of the COUNTRY along with NISG, DIT and Govt. of INDIA !!

READ THE following more to come on this eProcurement issue of INDIA:

NIC eProcurement project irregularities in INDIA ???

Is NIC promoting this eProcurement Scandle ? I

Does Prime Minister of INDIA want to LEGITAMIZE eProcurement scandle ? – IT Secretary RAO of AP writes: You are absolutely right on this one. We gave totally misleading figures.

http://egovindia.wordpress.com/2007/01/16/does-prime-minister-of-india-want-to-legitamize-eprocurement-scandle-it-secretary-rao-of-ap-writes-you-are-absolutely-right-on-this-one-we-gave-totally-misleading-figures/\n

This is with regard to the NIC tender for Supply, Installation, Testing,Training and Customization of eProcurement system (No.4(29)/2004-PS (T)) Published by JointDirector, (Purchase Section Technical), National Informatics Center, Ministry of Communications\nand Information Technology, Department of information Technology, A Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,New Delhi 110 003, Phone 011-2436-1605.

eGovINDIA Group want to\ninform you all the following:

1. In the prequalification criteria Page no.2, item no 2 (VI) NICsaid that the vendor or the prime bidder in the case of consortium should be CMM level 4 or ISO 9000-3 certified. (Please note that there is no certification called ISO 9000-3 in this world and it is only the guidelines for software companies. Through this ITI which has deployed more than 20 eProcurement projects across the country has been prevented from participating in the tender)

2. Apparently ITI Limited a PSU under MCIT has made a representation to NIC stating that the prequalification criteria is wrong and ITI should be allowed to participate in the tender whichhas”,

This is with regard to the NIC tender for Supply, Installation, Testing, Training and Customization of eProcurement system (No.4(29)/2004-PS (T)) Published by Joint Director, (Purchase Section Technical), National Informatics Center, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of information Technology, A Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003, Phone 011-2436-1605.

eGovINDIA Group want to inform you all the following:

1. In the prequalification criteria Page no.2, item no 2 (VI) NIC said that the vendor or the prime bidder in the case of consortium should be CMM level 4 or ISO 9000-3 certified. (Please note that there is no certification called ISO 9000-3 in this world and it is only the guidelines for software companies. Through this ITI which has deployed more than 20 eProcurement projects across the country has been prevented from participating in the tender)

2. Apparently ITI Limited a PSU under MCIT has made a representation to NIC stating that the prequalification criteria is wrong and ITI should be allowed to participate in the tender which has

Date:	Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
From:	“Venkat Kumaraswamy” vmkumaraswamy@yahoo.com
Subject:	NIC is there to support CITIZENS of INDIA and eGovernance of INDIA ! NOT to WORK AGAINST Citizens of INDIA !!! – India lacks co-ordination on e-gov – “Reengineer govt processes before e-gov”
To:	rpsaxena@nic.in, sio@mail.kar.nic.in
CC:	vmkumaraswamy@yahoo.com, suhas@cad.delhi.nic.in, dg@nic.in, vvsrao@nic.in, bkg@nic.in, ksdir@nic.in, yks@nic.in, moni@nic.in, bose@nic.in, rkg@nic.in, takhan@nic.in, nair@nic.in, indiarti@yahoogroups.com, kria@yahoogroups.com, egovindia@yahoogroups.com, pbala@nic.in, whabibullah@nic.in, mm.ansari@nic.in, egovrti@yahoo.com, sam.pitroda@c-sam.com

HTML Attachment

June 23rd, 2006

To:

NIC at Delhi and Bangalore,

Mr. B. V. Sharma – CPIO, NIC and NIC Bangalore ?

Dr. R. P Saxena – Appellate Authority and DDG, NIC

Mr. Sarup Datta, Scientist, NIC,

Mr. Ashok Kumar, ? NIC ?

Dr. Kashi Nath, Sr. Technical Director

Ms. Sudha Kumari, Technical Director, NIC,

Mr. A. Venkatesan, Sr. Technical Director, NIC

Sub: Appeal No. 24/ICPB/2006 dated June 5, 2006.

Dear All NIC persons mentioned above,

This is Mr. V. M. Kumaraswamy, MBA.

About eGovINDIA and it’s activties

http://egovindia.wordpress.com/

I have supported NIC before against NISG !!.

It is a DISGRACE for you all in NIC to do this !!!

How can you all go and plead infront of Information Commissioners that Mr. N. Anbarsan, Software Vendor from Bangalore is a COMPETITOR to NIC ?

Are you all going CRAZY in NIC ? What has happened to you all in NIC ?

Let us remind you all that NIC’s COMPETITION is NISG !! Which you guys can’t do a didly thing on NISG. NIC is like MICE infront of NISG.

Here a Citizen of INDIA is asking for information from NIC.

What TRADE SECRET NIC has to DISCLOSE which is against National Security of INDIA to Mr. N. Anbarsan a small time Software Vendor ? Please let me know.

What IPR work NIC has to disclouse against National Security of INDIA to Mr. N. Anbarsan a small time Software Vendor in Bangalore ? Please let me know.

If this small time software vendor is a PROBLEM for NIC, WHAT NIC can do for eGovernance for INDIA.

Did NIC read what National Knowledge Commission gave recomendations to Govt. of INDIA on eGovernance ? If not read the following:

India lacks co-ordination on e-gov 

http://egovindia.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/egovindia-yahoogroup-effect-submission-to-nkc/

http://right2information.wordpress.com/2006/06/12/india-lacks-co-ordination-on-e-gov-nkc/

Knowledge panel unveils blueprint for e-governance

E-governance: Panel for implementation soon

“Reengineer govt processes before e-gov”

http://egovindia.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/reengineer-govt-processes-before-e-gov/

How can DDG, Sr. Technical Director, Scientists, Technical Director and CPIO of NIC do these kind of things to go an tell ALL FALSE INFORMATION to Information Commissioners ? How can you all do this ?

NIC stands for something in INDIA. You all bringing down the name of NIC.

NIC has better job to do than this, opposing a small time software vendor.

NIC has lots of things to do for eGovernance of INDIA. NIC still has not learnt it’s lesson yet from NISG.

NIC and Information Commissioners should know that: An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

Why do NIC fear of public having such information ? If done in good faith and without negligence, how could the public blackmail NIC ?

YOU all need to read the following about RTI Act 2005.

IT’S OUR RIGHT. An inalienable right has been conferred on Citizens of INDIA.

We can ask any questions and get information we want as long it is not against NATIONAL SECURITY of INDIA.

The legislative intent is clear; we are entitled to know how our money is spent. The onus is on us to make the Act work.

In effect, therefore, the right conferred on the citizen is an exhaustive one. It allows him to assess and examine every government decision, to study the reasons recorded by the government for taking a particular step, and to utilise information so gathered to ensure that government acts in a transparent and just manner.

Indeed, the preamble to the Act puts it well when it says, “democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information” and adds these “are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed

Please read what CIC Wajahat Habibullah has made ruling:

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No CIC/WB/C/2006/00176

Dated: 18/4/’06

Right to Information Act- Section 19

Name of Appellant: Sri Ramesh Chand Sai

Name of Public Authority: National Institute of Science Communication &
Information (NISCAIR)

Facts:

Appellant Shri Ramesh Chand Sai, applied to CPIO Dr RK Verma on October 9,
2005 asking for details under four points on terms and conditions and their
implementation regarding a contract with one M/s Deep Security Services
(Regd.) and the employees deployed by the firm. Dissatisfied with the reply
received on 25/11/’05 he went in first appeal on 23/12/’06 to Shri KY
Kavathekar, Scientist F and Appellate Authority challenging the application
of “sec 8(d)” of the Act to the information sought by the CPIO. The
Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO with the curious ruling
that, “Under the RTI Act there is no provision of supplying list of
employees”. The applicant has therefore come in 2nd Appeal to the
Commission.

We have examined the file. The Decisions of both CPIO and Appellate
Authority display a total ignorance of the law they have been appointed to
administer. They repeatedly refer to Sec 8(d) of which appellation there is
no clause in the Right to Information Act, 2005. They also refer to a Sec
8(j). The fact that the appellant himself so alludes in no way mitigates the
responsibility of the CPIO and AA, since it is they who have been appointed
to assist an applicant in accessing information, The RTI Act in itself
cannot specify all information that may be accessed. It only refers to
exemptions u/s 8 and 24, in neither of which “list of employees” falls. If
however, the reference of the CPIO and AA is to Sec 8 (1) (d), in the
instant case the appellant had sought information about employees engaged on
contract basis. The question arises whether information submitted by the
supplier can be categorized as ‘commercial confidence’ as contemplated u/s 8
(1) (d).

Decision Notice

A contract with a public authority cannot be categorised as ‘confidential’
after completion. Even if some confidentiality is involved, public interest
in a matter of the nature of the present case will warrant disclosure. Had
it been a case of quotations, bid or tender or any other information prior
to conclusion of a contract, it could be categorized as trade secret, but
once concluded the confidentiality of such transactions cannot be claimed.
Any public authority claiming exemption must be put to strictest proof that
the exemption is justifiably claimed. This is not so in the present case.

The CPIO, Mr. Verma, will provide the information sought by the appellant
together with the list of employees within fifteen days. The public
authority NISCAIR is also directed to provide its RTI personnel with the
requisite awareness and training necessary for servicing the needs for
accountability and transparency mandated by the Act.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13/6/’06

_____________

Govt agency contracts not confidential: CIC

Himanshi Dhawan
[ Monday, June 19, 2006 12:57:45 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1657376.cms

NEW DELHI: In an order that could have far-reaching consequences, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that a contract with a public authority cannot be categorised as confidential.

Government agencies are loath to give information regarding contracts. Government transactions are often kept away from public view under the garb of confidentiality, especially in cases related to defence and national security.

While it is early days yet on whether the order will impact such contracts, the CIC’s decision appears to be a step in that direction.

The order issued by chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah substantiates this by elaborating that in case of “quotations, bid or tender or any other information prior to conclusion of a contract, it could be categorised as trade secret, but once concluded the confidentiality of such transactions cannot be claimed”.

The commission has directed the National Institute of Science Communication and Information (NISCAIR) to furnish information sought by an applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The appellant, Ramesh Chand Sai, had sought from NISCAIR details of a contract with a firm, Deep Security Services, and the employees deployed by the firm
_______________________

I hope you all go through this email and respond.

National Informatics Centre “NIC” needs to be more OPEN, TRANSPARENT and ACCOUNTABLE when dealing with Citizens of INDIA.

Thanks

Sincerely

V. M. Kumaraswamy, MBA

This is Mr. V. M. Kumaraswamy, MBA. About eGovINDIA and it’s activties

http://egovindia.wordpress.com/

http://right2information.wordpress.com/

http://whistleblowers.wordpress.com/

http://coverup2bungled.wordpress.com/

What is happenning at NIC ? (some background information )

What is happenning ot NIC ? (some background information )

Since the year 2000, when NIC was brought under the control of D/O of  Information Technology headed by Bureaucrat, It is obvious that there has been significant bureaucratic control on NIC. Even there was  bureaucratic  attempt in 2001-2002 to make NIC a  PSU so that it could be headed by  Bureaucrat for bringing NIC under bureaucratic control.

NIC usually has  been having very clean record till 2000 when NIC used to procure IT products for whole of government worth crores of rupees. Practically Mr. Rajiv  Gandhi  (based on the expensive  IT proposal sent by bureaucracy from each ministry  and state Govt during eighties) has created NIC for  bring uniformity and transparency in the investment in IT. But what is happening toady is just  reverse what Mr. Rajiv Gandhi could visualize.
Earlier NIC was under Planning Commission and has played significant role advising the planning Commission in judicious allocation of   IT budget  to  States and Govt departments. Since the time it was out of Planning  commission,  in the name of E-Governance bureaucratic officials have  been successful in pumping lot of Funds through  Planning Commission to states and Govt departments.

Any thing that has ben happening in NIC could undoubtedly will have some direct or indirect bureaucratic role.

No professional and Scientific Services in Central Govt could not be survived because of absolute power of Bureaucracy.

Since worldwide in different developed/developing Countries Civil services have been reformed for bringing in  professionally and scientifically  qualified personnel  presently working Bureaucratic Officials are  trying to bring the change in Administrative Reforms such that based on their qualifications they could be treated as subject specialists in  respective field.  How it is possible? How  an officer who has done just MBBS  academically and joined administrative Service and worked for 15  years as administrator could treated as professional.? An academically  qualified Doctor/ Engineer without continuous practice  becomes a  general  administrator for 15 years and suddenly one day he becomes a professional. what about the doctor/Engineer who has been highly qualified in his profession and has been practicing Professional from very beginning of career.

This is what happened in IT, The government Scientists who have been Ph.D or highly qualified in IT in late eighties and nineties could never been promoted in government but some bureaucrats who have very little education and experience have been become IT Secretaries and IT managers in govts making E-Governance expensive slogan  through which they could misguide the  Politicians in Govt for their own honeymoon with this hype on
E_Governance.
NIC being always a hindrance in their such activities it  has been targeted for all  ill fame.

In Nineties NIC was very proactive and a force with its highly qualified personnel from IIT and premier institutes. Who stopped the bureaucratic official to make use of NIC expertise and make E-Governance a real success?
NIC Officials have been working continuously  for 15 year in one ministry /state/districs sector making them more domain specialist than even IAS officer who hardly works in specific sector for two/three year.

Regarding Professional Experience of NIC official, NIC has been recruiting fresh IT scientists up to the year 2000. It has mixture of experienced and young professionals. Furthermore each of NIC personnel is very proficient with respect to development of Software for any Govt. applications. Moreover, Government E-Governance MIS applications are very simple and do not require very specialized applications. In case some user look for very completed application NIC would be the best in house consultant and can take up as turn-key project to hire the specialized service from IT vendors for particular user. It is unfortunate that many Bureaucrats including in NISG are giving the project directly to Pvt.  Vendors without any particular technically monitoring scheme. It is nice to hear from a earlier Secretary to Govt. that none of the private vendors have successfully implemented any project in Govt sector. This is true because bureaucrats are good in giving administrative and financial approval of any project for Pvt. vendor without having any requirement analysis or SRS or understanding the significance of applications.

NISG headed by Bureaucrat will certainly try to trap NIC by making it autonomous  organization under it so that the hold NIC has in Govt. could be reduced and Bureaucracy in NISG and in Govt departments can have projects aimlessly through private vendors for the shelf gratification. Pvt vendors will also  have relief when NIC could be taken out of Govt so that they can have lot of business with some of  corrupt bureaucrats. Bureaucracy has been responsible in marginalising all important professional organization like BSNL and result is it is sold off because of their interference. Unless some action is taken  NIC will face such situation and all which NIC have  developed during last 20 year will become redundant.

It is unfortunate that such a  pool of NIC IT professionals which have been  nurtured by Govt  could become meaningless.