The Curious Case of CAG’s New Advice on Public Procurement

The CAG’s letter seems driven by the reality that internal sabotage-rather than external cartelisation-is now a greater threat in certain sectors.

By P SESH KUMAR

New Delhi, November 25, 2025 — In an unexpected turn in India’s procurement discourse, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is understood to have advised the Department of Expenditure to discourage retendering, arguing that repetitive cancellations and calls for fresh bids erode efficiency and distort price discovery. This quiet but consequential shift per media reports comes at an inflection point when India is chasing a USD 7 trillion economic ambition and needs a procurement system that is both agile and incorruptible.

Yet the position appears to run counter to the CAG’s own long-celebrated audit findings over many years, where retendering was repeatedly upheld as a bulwark against cartelisation, single-bid manipulation and sweetheart deals. The background, rationale and implications of this apparent reversal amid the gold standards of UN, IMF and World Bank procurement norms mandate that the next step must be a calibrated, principle-driven Part II of the debate—not a binary “yes/no” on retendering, but a smarter pathway that protects integrity without paralysing expenditure.

Retendering, Reform or Retreat? The Curious Case

The Times of India report (19 November 2025) presents a striking development: the CAG has formally advised the Ministry of Finance that indiscriminate retendering-especially when cancellations are engineered by vested interests (wonder how this is assessed) within procuring organisations-has begun to erode efficiency, delay public works and disrupt the procurement ecosystem.

The report reveals that the CAG expressed concern that rogue officials sometimes trigger tender cancellations to favour certain bidders or to restrict the pool of participants, thereby subverting the intended spirit of open competition. The newspaper also notes that the CAG has pushed for a unified national system for verifying vendor credentials and eliminating duplication, arguing that an integrated platform is essential if India is to reach its USD 7 trillion economic ambition by 2030.

Seen in isolation, these observations hold credibility. Retendering can indeed be misused. Procurement specialists in multilateral institutions routinely warn that uncontrolled cancellations and repeated fresh calls for bids can paralyse infrastructure pipelines, distort cost projections and create room for opaque insider manoeuvres.

International experience shows that retendering is sometimes deployed as a covert mechanism to keep the tender “alive” until a preferred supplier emerges. In construction and infrastructure contracts, each retender typically adds several months to project timelines and magnifies cost overruns, pushing India’s already stressed public expenditure cycles further behind schedule.

Yet this development becomes dramatically more complex when juxtaposed with CAG’s own historical advocacy of retendering. Over the decades, a major thrust of the CAG’s audit philosophy rested on the idea that retendering is the corrective mechanism that reopens competition when procurement conditions become skewed, compromised or collusive.

In numerous audit paragraphs, the CAG insisted that retendering ought to have been conducted whenever a single responsive bid came in despite a large potential supplier base, whenever technical specifications appeared to restrict participation, whenever the tendering process favoured a solitary entity, or whenever price bids seemed suspiciously close-suggesting cartel behaviour.

Retendering, in this older narrative, was an instrument of cleansing, a scrubber that removed manipulative barriers, a safeguard that prevented the State from sleepwalking into sweetheart deals.

This historical backdrop renders the new advisory jarring. A constitutional audit institution that relentlessly advocated retendering as a shield against procurement irregularities is now cautioning against it as a source of inefficiency.

There is an uneasy tension here-one that merits deep, careful interpretation. The question is whether India is witnessing a thoughtful evolution in thinking, a rotation of perspective driven by transformed market realities, or an unacknowledged contradiction.

To be fair, the procurement universe has evolved. India today is attempting an enormous scaling up of infrastructure output, public investment and service delivery.

The rise of GeM, digital platforms for bid evaluation, standardised documentation, and analytics-driven price benchmarking have compressed the informational asymmetry that once plagued procurement. In this new landscape, the economic cost of delay caused by repeated retendering may be far more consequential than before.

Further, the CAG’s letter seems driven by the reality that internal sabotage-rather than external cartelisation-is now a greater threat in certain sectors. When officials cancel tenders not to protect competition but to tilt outcomes, retendering becomes the weapon of manipulation rather than the medicine of integrity. This may well be the mischief the CAG seeks to cure.

But this shift creates a new conceptual hazard: the danger of framing efficiency and integrity as opposing forces. Procurement theory worldwide has moved away from that dichotomy.

The UN Procurement Division, IMF safeguards assessments and World Bank Regulations emphasise that integrity is an outcome-based principle, not a procedural burden. The UN and World Bank regimes do not treat retendering as wasteful unless it is unjustified.

On the contrary, they mandate retendering when competition collapses, when red flags of collusion emerge, when bids appear artificially clustered, or when procurement conditions are patently unfair. The IMF’s technical guidance notes go as far as to specify that failure to retender in a compromised procurement cycle may itself be a governance breach. Internationally, retendering is therefore seen not as an irritant but as a regulatory tool-deployed carefully but firmly to recalibrate the market.

Thus, when India’s CAG cautions against retendering without building an explicit doctrinal distinction between legitimate retendering and manipulative retendering, the risk of misinterpretation grows.

The advice, if understood narrowly, might embolden procuring agencies to justify questionable awards in the name of efficiency or timeliness. It might reduce the administrative appetite to cancel compromised tenders.

It might tilt the balance subtly in favour of completing the tender cycle at any cost rather than ensuring it is uncontaminated. The fundamental fear is that discouraging retendering as a general practice may inadvertently weaken the very shield that has traditionally protected taxpayer money from distortion.

The Audit Watchdog Has Lost Its Bite — The CAG Must Reinvent

The deeper issue is that India lacks a robust classification matrix to differentiate between justified retendering, unjustified retendering and retendering triggered by vested interests within the system. The absence of codified criteria forces officials into making subjective calls.

This creates fertile ground for both manipulation and confusion. Every cancellation appears suspicious, and every retender appears inefficient. Decision-makers, fearing audit censure or administrative backlash, often choose the path of least resistance: neither cancelling questionable tenders nor documenting reasons for going ahead with them. This institutional ambiguity is the real disease-not retendering itself.

The gold-standard norms of UN agencies, IFAD, World Bank and IMF offer a different template. They emphasise transparency of reasoning, auditability of decision-making and defensibility of outcomes. They require that every cancellation be justified in writing, that every retendering decision be grounded in evidence and that the chain of reasoning be open to external scrutiny.

They do not demonise retendering; they discipline it. They do not sacrifice integrity for speed; they harmonise the two through documented rationale, risk assessments and market diagnostics. In these systems, retendering is neither fetishised nor discouraged; it is normalised within a structured, traceable governance environment.

India’s real challenge is not to abolish or suppress retendering but to re-engineer it. The future lies in building a risk-based framework that spells out the triggers for cancellation and retendering, instituting mandatory recording of reasons, deploying AI-based market analytics to detect collusion patterns, and creating penalties for unjustified cancellations by officials.

None of this requires the abandonment of retendering. What it requires is the transformation of retendering from a discretionary administrative action into a structured governance decision. The CAG, as the constitutional guardian of financial integrity, is uniquely placed to champion such a nuanced model.

The next instalment of this debate-the Part II that must inevitably follow-should not revolve around a simplistic endorsement or rejection of retendering. It should articulate when retendering is indispensable, when it is counterproductive, how it can be insulated from manipulation, and how it can co-exist with India’s ambitions for speed, efficiency and fiscal prudence.

This fine-grained approach will allow India to align itself with international best practices while preserving the vigilant spirit of its own audit tradition.

In sum, the way forward is not a retreat from retendering, nor a blind reform of procurement mechanics, but a thoughtful recalibration that upholds integrity without choking execution.

The world’s multilateral systems have already shown that this balance is achievable. India must now craft its own intelligent retendering framework-not as a concession to efficiency, but as an assertion of its commitment to transparent, timely and competitive public spending.

(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)

How India’s CAG Turned Docile After Digging Manmohan Scams

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author