HOHB A PPP Model For

1. HOHBA PPP Model For System for COmputerisedREgistration) (SCORE) In Bihar A Presentation By Dr. N. Vijayalakshmi, IAS I.G. Registration, Bihar

2. Introduction • Public-private partnership (PPP) or P3 or P3 model describes a government service or private business venture which is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies • This model generally runs either on BOOT or on BOT basis

3. contd • The traditional PPP model more often becomes Private Public Partnership instead of Public Private Partnership • In Bihar a new PPP or limited PPP model was first tried on pilot basis for introducing the computerized system of registration of documents and later on adopted as final model for it.

4. BOT Experience • Inspired by the computerized system of registration in other States, the Government of Bihar started taking initiative to implement this system also in Bihar. • In the meantime a PSU offered to run the system of computerized registration on Build Operate & Transfer (BOT) basis • The Government agreed to it in principle with the rider that PSU would submit the detailed project proposal which would be evaluated by an evaluation committee headed by the Development Commissioner.

5. BOT model(Proposal) • Minimum Guarantee for scanning of 35 lakh pages in a year • Service Charge @25/- per page • Escalation of Rs. 1/- per year in service charge • Contract for 5 years • Operator to transfer hardware after contract period

6. Contd • Software was to be provided by state government • The state govt. to make rooms available for computerization • No manual or other system of registration allowed during contract period nor could it be given to other agencies • PSU to have libertyof having a private partner • A pilot project to be run in 1 registry office

7. BOT Experience • During the evaluation of their proposal PSU offered to run a pilot project which could be useful for the evaluation of their proposal. • Thus a pilot project was started at DRO, Patna on 05.09.2005. • Shortcomings Noted • System malfunctions were observed right from the day of initiation • There was a low level of accountability for faults - PSU blamed NIC for slow software • The PSU staff was slow in processing applications due to their limited knowledge of deeds and their structure • In 17 days only 50 registrations were done through computerized process although the average demand in the office was about 70 per day

8. BOT Experience • Steps for remedy • PSU was asked to install additional hardware which was completed in 15 days • DSR was transferred • New DSR put 1 staff each behind PSU’s operators for accelerating data entry • The project looked up and survived

9. HOHB ModelA department run initiative • The delay made by PSU in the installation of additional hardware led the department to enquire about hiring of additional hardware for the time being. • There was an offer from a local vendor to provide required hardware on rent. • This gave way for trying a new concept of procuring hardware on hire and to run it by the department. • The evaluation Committee allowed the department to run a parallel project on HOHB, so that a comparative evaluation could be made between BOT and HOHB

10. HOHB ModelA department run initiative • The program was initiated departmentally in Muzaffarpur, Hajipur and Danapur using hardware on hire and the NIC software prepared for Patna model • It was run by department employees after they were given appropriate training • 1 data entry operator was permitted • Service charges were levied on the pattern of the BOT model to meet expenditures on: • Hardware hiring • Consumables • Generators for power back up

11. One unit of Hardware underHOHB

12. Government Decides! • A presentation was made before the CM on 1st February 2006 explaining both types of pilots, their advantages and disadvantages • On 5th February 2006, the CM approved the following proposals: • BOT offer be rejected • Muzaffarpur model be extended in all offices • Societies to be registered at state & district levels to function as SPVs • Societies to hire hardware, collect service charge and meet expenses on consumables etc. • State level society to collect savings of district level societies and use it for maintaining the software etc. • Not more than 10 offices to be served by 1 hardware supplier

13. Contd • BOT rejection was justified due to the following reasons: • Major part of the project i.e. software development was already with state/NIC by then • Govt. was to bear the cost on civil items anyway • Only hardware supply & operators were left which could be arranged in the state itself • BOT from any other reputed all India party was likely to be as expensive • Involvement of departmental staff was missing - Patna project could take off only after involving them

14. Implementation of HOHB Steps Undertaken • Hardware Tenders • Department floated tenders for hiring hardware • Option for division-wise rates was permitted • Tenders were decided for rate of 1 unit of hardware for each division • Due to limit of coverage of 10 offices, tenderers other than L1s were also permitted if they agreed for same rates and conditions • In some cases non availability of tenderer led to selection of local supplier on the same rate • About 15 small entrepreneurs got jobs by the above mentioned plan • Uninterrupted power supply • Provision of generator on hire was made for unhindered power supply in Registration offices • Expectations from Suppliers • Installation of software provided by NIC • Keep a technical resource for troubleshooting

15. Steps Undertaken (contd.) • Set-up and Training • A team of NIC scientists & senior officer of department camped at one district level office in each division for starting the computerized system till it settled down • Thereafter hardware suppliers were trusted for dissemination and their men were trained • Local departmental officers (IROs) and NIC officers (DIOs) successfully disseminated the experience in other offices of the division • Establishment of Implementing bodies • District level Societies i. e. (District)_SCOREs were created torun and maintain the system • A State level society i.e. BISCORE was also created for maintenance and updating of software and to guide and monitor the functioning of district level societies

16. Timeline 05/02/06 Govt. decision to introduce HOHB model in all offices 05/09/05 Inauguration of ECIL’s pilot project in Patna 05/07/06 50th office computerized on HOHB model TIMELINE 11/04/06 5th office computerized on HOHB model 30/03/07 109th office computerized on HOHB model 05/12/05 Inauguration of HOHB pilot project in Muzaffarpur

17. Sustainability • A self sustained and cost effective system • Independent of State budget • Run and maintained by the District SCORES, a district level society under the chairmanship of Collector-cum- District Registrar • BISCORE, a state level registered society guides them. It is also to take care of the software • A service charge of Rs. 20 per scanned page charged by the societies to run and maintain the system

18. Major Advantages • The system could be disseminated within a year in all 109 registration offices • The system is cost effective with no liability (financial, technical or other) on the Government • The savings from the service charge are being utilized for providing public amenities, like waiting hall, toilet, drinking water, sitting arrangement etc. in registration offices.

19. BOT vis-à-vis HOHB Model The Figure depicts yearly comparative Receipts. Expenditure and savings of an average registration office having workload of 90 deeds per day and requiring 2 units of hardware. The savings in BOT Rs.16,20,000 whereas in HOHB it is Rs. 54,82,440. In view of this rate of service charge was reduced from Rs. 30/- per page to Rs. 20/- per page.

20. THANK YOU