Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesIndia’s Defence Procurement Procedure 2016 (DPP 2016) was a historical framework for capital acquisitions by the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Services and the Indian Coast Guard. It aimed to balance timely, accountable procurement with a graded preference for domestic industry, culminating in the priority category Buy (Indian-IDDM). The Ministry unveiled the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020 in September 2020, so DPP 2016 should not be treated as the current framework; the status of any later draft or update is not established here.
What was Defence Procurement Procedure 2016?
DPP 2016 set out rules for acquiring military equipment, systems and platforms using capital-procurement funds. The Ministry of Defence said the new procedure was placed on its website on 28 March 2016; a 2017 Government of India summary described it as effective from April 2016.
Its stated aims joined operational and governance concerns: procure equipment on time and to required performance and quality standards, use allocated budgets optimally, and ensure probity, public accountability, transparency, fair competition and a level playing field. It also made self-reliance in defence production and acquisition a key objective. The Ministry presented indigenous design, development and manufacturing as a way to support the Government’s Make in India initiative.
What acquisitions did it cover?
The procedure applied to capital acquisitions by the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Services and the Indian Coast Guard, whether sourced domestically or imported. Medical equipment was excluded. The text also said that DRDO, the Ordnance Factory Board and Defence Public Sector Undertakings continued to follow their own procurement procedures.
#1 Best Overall
How did DPP 2016 rank acquisition categories?
The procedure created a graded preference: the more an acquisition supported qualifying Indian design, development, production or phased local manufacturing, the higher its place in the stated acquisition order. These categories were not interchangeable labels for “made in India”: procurement structure, vendor or product origin, design criteria and indigenous-content thresholds all mattered.
| Category | Purchase or production structure | Indigenous design and content rules stated in the cited material | Place in stated priority order |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buy (Indian-IDDM) | Buy of qualifying indigenously designed, developed and manufactured equipment, or equipment meeting the alternative content route. | Either indigenously designed, developed and manufactured with at least 40% indigenous content, calculated on total contract value, or at least 60% indigenous content even if not indigenously designed and developed. | 1 |
| Buy (Indian) | Buy category; the cited summary does not specify a phased-production structure. | At least 40% indigenous content. Do not infer from the category name alone that the product was indigenously designed. | 2 |
| Buy and Make (Indian) | Buy-and-Make route with an Indian element; the procedure connects such routes to domestic production. | The Ministry’s 2017 release stated a minimum 50% indigenous content in the Make portion. The authority granting Acceptance of Necessity could change the percentage. | 3 |
| Buy and Make | Initial purchase of fully formed equipment followed by phased indigenous production through technology transfer. | A specific indigenous-content threshold is not stated in the cited material. | 4 |
| Buy (Global) | Buy category; the cited material does not state a phased local-production structure for this category. | A specific indigenous-content threshold is not stated in the cited material. | 5 |
| Make | Development-oriented route intended to build domestic capability rather than simply purchase finished equipment. | The cited material does not give a single general indigenous-content threshold for the category. | Not included in the stated five-category priority order. |
The priority order above is the order stated in DPP 2016: Buy (Indian-IDDM), Buy (Indian), Buy and Make (Indian), Buy and Make, then Buy (Global). Make was a separate category with its own development mechanisms, not an extra rung in that list.
What made Indian-IDDM distinct?
Indian-IDDM was the highest-priority Buy category and the procedure’s clearest preference for indigenous design and development. It offered two routes: meet the design, development and manufacturing criteria with at least 40% indigenous content, or meet the 60% indigenous-content threshold without the indigenous-design-and-development condition. The percentages were calculated on total contract value for the 40% route described in the official text.
That distinction matters when interpreting the labels. “Indian vendor,” “made in India” and “indigenously designed” are not synonyms in this framework. The procedure placed responsibility on vendors to substantiate indigenous-design claims; verification was to involve a committee including DRDO scientists and service headquarters representatives.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
How were Make, technology transfer and offsets intended to build capacity?
Make projects and MSME participation
The Make category was intended to develop long-term domestic defence capability. A 24 March 2017 Government of India summary said the procedure contemplated government funding of 90% of development cost for Indian-industry Make development. It also described reservation of certain projects for MSMEs up to development-cost caps of ₹10 crore for government-funded projects and ₹3 crore for industry-funded projects.
These were terms reported in the 2017 summary, not a guarantee that every project received that funding or that the same eligibility rules apply under later procedures. They show how DPP 2016 sought to lower some development barriers while limiting the projects reserved by cost.
Buy-and-Make and transfer of technology
Buy-and-Make routes linked an initial equipment purchase to later domestic production. The procedure’s model of purchasing fully formed equipment first and then phasing in indigenous production through technology transfer offered a bridge between acquiring a capability and developing local manufacturing. The Ministry also described private industry participation as production agencies and technology-transfer partners.
Offsets
On 18 December 2017, the Ministry announced that the defence-offset threshold had risen from ₹300 crore to ₹2,000 crore. It said offset costs had increased and smaller original-equipment manufacturers were finding it difficult to execute obligations. That statement records the Ministry’s rationale for the change; it does not establish the change’s independent policy effects. The Ministry’s 2017 release described offset-discharge routes including technology transfer, investment in kind and joint ventures.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Best Value
What do the early procurement figures show?
A 2017 Government of India Ministry of Defence summary reported that, through January 2017, 136 capital-procurement cases had been approved at an estimated cost of ₹4,00,714 crore. Of those cases, 96, worth ₹2,46,417 crore, fell under Buy (Indian-IDDM), Buy (Indian), Buy and Make (Indian), or Make.
These are approval figures reported by the Ministry for the period ending January 2017. They are not counts of completed purchases, audited outcomes or current totals. They indicate the scale and category mix of approvals reported early in the procedure’s life, but do not by themselves show whether procurement was timely, whether promised domestic capability resulted, or how much equipment was ultimately delivered.
How should DPP 2016 be understood now?
DPP 2016 is best read as a historical policy framework, not as a statement of current procurement rules. The Ministry of Defence unveiled the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020 (DAP 2020) in September 2020. Accordingly, DPP 2016’s categories and thresholds explain the design of that earlier procedure; they should not be assumed to govern present acquisitions without checking the applicable later official rules.
The lasting analytical feature of DPP 2016 is its attempt to combine procurement discipline with industrial policy. It retained a global-purchase route while ranking Indian-oriented categories ahead of it, and it differentiated preferences according to design, domestic content and production structure. The central policy challenge built into that design was balancing near-term access to capable equipment with the longer-term goal of developing domestic suppliers and technology.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
