Clubbing of Railway Tenders Across States — A Question of Transparency, Fairness, and Rate Rationality

Admin

India’s railway infrastructure push, involving critical works such as Road Over Bridges (#ROB), Road Under Bridges (#RUB), Limited Height Subways (#LHS), and station buildings, is central to the country’s growth story. Yet, emerging tendering practices are raising serious questions about fairness, transparency, and technical soundness.

A concerning trend is the clubbing of major tenders across two or even three states into a single package. These bundled contracts combine diverse works across geographically distinct regions, often under one bidding framework. While this may be justified in the name of administrative efficiency, it risks undermining the very principles of competitive and equitable public procurement.

One of the most problematic aspects of this approach is the imposition of a uniform Schedule of Rates (SOR) across all included states. Construction economics vary widely across regions due to differences in labor costs, material sourcing, transportation logistics, and local compliance requirements. Applying a single rate structure across states disregards these realities, leading to distorted cost assessments and uneven bidding conditions.

Even more puzzling is the consistent reliance on the Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) as the benchmark in such multi-state tenders. This raises an important and legitimate question: why DSR only? Why are the Schedule of Rates of the respective states — which are more reflective of local market conditions — not being considered or adopted?

Each state publishes its own SOR based on localized data, factoring in region-specific costs and construction practices. Ignoring these and defaulting to DSR creates a mismatch between estimated and actual costs on the ground. In states where costs are higher than Delhi benchmarks, contractors may struggle to deliver quality within constrained budgets. Conversely, in lower-cost regions, there may be scope for inflated margins, compromising the integrity of competitive bidding.

This selective standardization not only weakens cost rationality but also raises concerns about intent and transparency. Is the goal to simplify processes, or does it inadvertently restrict participation to a limited set of large contractors who can absorb such discrepancies? Smaller, regional contractors — who possess valuable local expertise — are effectively sidelined, reducing competition and diversity in execution.

Additionally, clubbing projects across states complicates monitoring and accountability. When multiple works in different jurisdictions are tied into one contract, oversight becomes diffused. Delays, cost escalations, or quality issues in one region can impact the entire package, making it harder to assign responsibility and enforce corrective action.

Public procurement frameworks emphasize fairness, equal opportunity, and context-sensitive decision-making. The current practice of multi-state tender clubbing with a single, centrally imposed rate schedule appears misaligned with these principles.

A more balanced and transparent approach is needed. Railway authorities should consider:

  • Issuing region-specific or state-wise tenders instead of excessive clubbing
  • Adopting state-specific SORs or a rational hybrid model reflecting local conditions
  • Allowing flexibility in rate analysis where DSR may not be appropriate
  • Encouraging broader participation by reducing entry barriers for regional contractors
  • Strengthening audit and monitoring mechanisms for large infrastructure contracts

India’s railway modernization must stand on the pillars of fairness, transparency, and technical integrity. Tendering practices that ignore regional realities risk not only inefficiency but also a loss of public trust. Addressing these concerns proactively will ensure that infrastructure development remains both robust and credible.