The Swiss challenge model means a method of public procurement in which an unsolicited proposal is received by a public authority for a project that predominantly involves uniqueness and specificity of design, technology and intellectual property rights. The government then examines the proposal and if the proposal belongs to the declared policy of priorities, then it may invite competing counter proposals from third parties. In the event of a better proposal being received, the original proponent is given the opportunity to modify the original proposal. Finally, the proponent with the best plan is awarded the contract.
In a 2009 ruling, the Supreme Court had approved the Swiss Challenge method for award of contracts. Further, respective state governments were encouraged to draft guidelines for procurement using the Swiss Challenge method. For example, Maharashtra and Karnataka have adopted their own policy guidelines.
Advantages of Swiss Challenge Model

• Promotes competition: It allows the project to be put for competitive bidding and counter- bidding so as to realize the optimum cost.
• Enhances efficiency: It provides time and cost saving on pre project activities and feasibility studies for the public authority vis-à-vis other Public Private Partnership (PPP) models.
• Professionalism: With proper identification of timelines, risks and their allocation, it becomes easier for the public authority as the project preparation is done in a more professional manner and in turn reducing red-tapism.
• Creativity: Since this model allows the prospective bidders to analyse the design submitted by their competitors and come out with better design, it promotes creative designing and project execution.
• Equitability: Useful for the governments that have limited technical and financial capacity to develop projects.

Problems associated with Swiss Challenge Model

• Issue of Transparency: The biggest concerns are the lack of sufficient transparency and inadequate competition, while dealing with unsolicited proposals and thus it becomes difficult to fix accountability.
• Crony capitalism: This method could breed crony capitalism by allowing companies to employ dubious means to bag projects.
• Bidding asymmetry: There is asymmetry in bidding time given to bidders to prepare counter proposals in relation to time taken by originator for preparation.
• Issue of legal validity: There are no adequate regulatory and legal frameworks. Further, there is a problem of proper legal validity of using this method when a counter proposal contains different specifications than the original proposal.
• Difficult to measure the monetary value: It is very difficult to measure monetary value of an unsolicited proposal when a contract or project is not given to the original proponent.

However, these issues can be addressed by instituting a national policy framework for the Swiss Challenge method. There should be wider participation and greater flexibility to promote innovation at the pre-proposal stage and sufficient time for counter-bidders to respond at the post-proposal stage.

Land pooling is a land acquisition strategy wherein a single agency or government body consolidates small land parcels into a large parcel, provides it with infrastructure, and returns a sizable land portion of redeveloped land to the original owners after deducting some portion as cost of infrastructure development. Presently, Pradesh. ant Presently, this scheme is in execution in Delhi and Andhra

Benefits of Land Pooling:

• For landowners:
  • They benefit from the increase in land value, as the value of the land retained increases substantially compared to his original holding.
  • They get access to substantially better infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, schools, water, etc.
  • It would lead to the conversion of irregular parcels into plots of regular sizes and shapes, which would be appropriate for further development.
  • The strategy to not displace original landowners would retain the traditional sense of belonging for the landowners.
• For the government:
  • Under this approach, the government does not have to pay any initial outlay to acquire the land.
  • The approach would face relatively less resistance from landowners, as it treats them as investors in the development projects.
  • It fast-tracks the traditional land acquisition process while addressing the associated social concerns.
  • Increased property prices lead to a higher tax base for the government.
• Increase of public-private cooperation and trust: The land pooling strategy ensures a three-way win for the private players to put their skills to use, the government to facilitate the development, and ultimately the land owners who benefit from the development.
  • Since it involves the participation of the landowners, the diversion of land for another use is prevented.

Associated challenges in this context are:

• Whether proper consent for land pooling has been given by landowners is debatable, with the speed needed for development often pressuring agencies to make land pooling compulsory.
• More needs to be done to ensure that compensation and resettlement provisions extend to tenant farmers and agricultural laborers, as compensatory packages are often insufficient for the landless. Also, capital value appreciation may take time.
• Inconsistencies in land pooling and its associated legal framework complicate the acquisition process. Moreover, it is difficult to apply for land pooling in congested urban areas.
• Restarting farming on the reconstituted plots incurs high costs, as new farm equipment must be bought.

Given the pressing need for development in India, land acquisition by the states has persistently been a key issue. Many flagship urban development projects have been delayed owing to issues with land acquisition. Moreover, the mechanism created under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 further adds complications such as social impact survey, higher rates of compensation, caps on acquisition of multi-crop and agricultural land, mandatory consent of landowners as well as consent of the Gram Sabhas in the Scheduled Areas. These need to be addressed to ensure the success of the land pooling scheme.

Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNP) is one of the leading container ports of the country and is ranked 26th among the top 100 global ports. It is a container handling port accounting for around 50% of the total containerized cargo volume. The JNP became the first 100% Landlord Major Port of India.
A Landlord Port is characterized by its mixed public-private orientation. Under this model, the port authority acts as the regulatory body and landlord, while port operations (especially cargo handling) are carried out by private companies. Today, the Landlord Port is the dominant port model in larger and medium-sized ports.
The features of the Landlord Port include:

• The port authority manages the basic port assets by letting land and infrastructure to port operators in an efficient manner. It would also be involved in planning, lease negotiation, safety, navigation and overall coordinating functions.
• Cargo services, marine service, ancillary services, berths etc. are privatised on captive/BOT(Build-Operate-Transfer) basis to the primary port users.
• Port operators and other undertakings which need to be located in the port, lease the land, infrastructure and associated services and provide them to the secondary users cargo owners, ship owners and cargo ship owners.

Other types of models employed in port management are as follows:

• Public service port model: In this model, the public authority owns the land and all available assets-fixed and mobile-and performs all regulatory as well as operational tasks. The main objective is to provide a smooth and secured transaction through the port and create employment rather than focusing on profit.
• Tool port model: It is close to the public service port model with the public authority owning all the land and providing all the infrastructure and superstructure including, cranes, port control equipment, and other supplies. The port operator uses the provided equipment to continue the port operation. A tool port is a transitional form between a public service port and a landlord port.
• Corporatized port model: These ports are almost entirely privatized, with the exception that the ownership remains public and often assumed as a majority shareholder. The port authority essentially behaves as a private enterprise. This management model is unique since it is the only one where ownership and control are separated.
• Private service port model: The port authority is entirely privatized with almost all the port functions under private control with the public sector retaining a standard regulatory oversight. Still, public entities can be shareholders and thus gear the port towards strategies that are deemed to be of public interest.

The government enacted the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 to empower the ports and enable them to perform with greater efficiency on account of increased autonomy in decision-making and by modernizing their institutional framework. Further, as part of the Maritime India Vision (MIV) 2030, globally benchmarked targets have been defined to help India develop best-in-class port infrastructure.