SHAH ALAM: The more the merrier. In a previous post on the Malaysian peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon, Malaysian Defence wrote that the Turkish Nurol Makina Ejder Yalcin could be delivered there next year.
The post:
What about the newly contracted Nurol Makina Ejder Yalcin then? I was told that the first vehicles contracted has passed their Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) recently. There is a still a chance that the vehicles will only be delivered to Malbat 850-11 though. As usual we took too long to decide even when the requirements call for a quick turnover.
I was mistaken though. The 20 Ejder Yalcin will only be delivered in batches from 2026 to 2028, according to reports quoting Joint Force Command chief Lieutenant-General Yazid Arshad. The Ejder Yalcin will complement the 12 IAG Guardians armoured 4X4 purchased in 2017 (nine purchased originally). Once delivered the Guardians and Ejder Yalcin will replaced the 39 Condors in service with Malbatt in Unifil since 2006.
Malaysian Defence has previously reported that the Armed Forces had been looking to replace the Condors since 2007 but no one would have thought that it will be completed in 22-years, time.
It would have been shorter, if the Defence Ministry recommendation that more Guardians be procured – with a RWS instead of the manually operated turret of the original 12. However, it was later decided that a competition be held instead. While a tender is good practice, the decision to choose another completely different vehicle – the Guardian competed – meant that the Army now have two armoured vehicles to support and train with.
–Malaysian Defence
So, Malaysian Army in Lebanon possessed 12 Guardian instead of 9? Is there any new tender released after the 9 originally procured?
Nope, AFAIK. They could add to the original number by issuing a VO. As it is the Guardians were bought without a tender as it was part of the Starstreak order which was also bought without a tender. This was before PH Government introduced the mandatory tender after May 2018
I look at this issue from another POV. We shouldn’t see that the tender outcome gave a different vehicle than the Guardian is the problem. We should be asking if the Guardian were the suitable vehicle to be compared with since it was bought without tendering process. If going by AG review it wasn’t, as this buy were not fully reimbursed by UN as they did not fully met UN requirements.
So please understand the direct buy was a mistake, the tender buy was merely correcting that.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
There is nothing wrong if that tender selected the most suitable vehicle, fitted with the right equipment, bought at the right price, which met all of UN requirements, and which we are confident to get fully reimbursed by UN.
maybe it is best to take a look at a previous comment here?
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/cendana-auto-ffr-in-lebanon/#comment-666290
Whatever it is, having a tender for a new equipment is good.
having a tender to add to existing equipment, that will cause multiple similar stuff doing the same task, this is not good at all.
@joe
In a nutshell sure but on the overall picture we showcase a failure in planning & executions as we currently bought 3 different vehicle & would acquired a forth type to replace the condors.
@kakadu
The requirement from UN was for APC mounted with RWS. The Guardians obviously didn’t fulfill that requirement fully hence why it wasn’t fully reimbursed and why it was picked by AG.
The tender was to correct a mistake. If you have made a mistake, why continue making that mistake instead of changing course and making corrections?
@Zaft
In a nutshell it reflected on the changes to our procurement policy, and this tender policy is a change towards something positive. At least if we got things right this round, we don’t have to retender for subsequent batches and we would still get vehicles that suited our requirements.