Questions Over Chromebook Procurement In Andhra Pradesh: GeM Flags Concerns, Public Loss Feared

New Delhi [India], January 30: Serious concerns have surfaced over a Government of India–funded school IT procurement in Andhra Pradesh, with documents indicating that the tender process for Chromebooks may have been structured and modified to favour select bidders, potentially causing a significant loss to the public exchequer.

The controversy relates to the procurement of 51,885 Chromebooks for government schools under a Project Approval Board (PAB)–approved scheme of the Ministry of Education, Government of India. The e-tender, issued by the State Project Director, AP Samagra Shiksha Society (APSSS), closed on January 24.

A review of tender documents, corrigenda, official replies, industry representations, and Government of India advisories reveals a series of red flags suggesting that competition, quality safeguards, and value-for-money principles may have been compromised.

GeM flags restrictive conditions

In a key development, the Government e-Marketplace (GeM)—the central procurement platform—formally flagged that the tender mandated multiple foreign certifications such as EPEAT Gold, TCO, FCC, Energy Star, and MIL-STD-810H, cautioning that these conditions “may be restrictive and beyond MeitY/DPIIT/PPP-MII norms, thereby limiting competition.” GeM advised the department to review the matter and take corrective action.

Despite this explicit advisory, no meaningful correction appears to have been made before bid closure, raising questions about why a central procurement platform’s warning was disregarded in a centrally funded project.

Deviation from central procurement norms

Industry sources point out that the insistence on EPEAT Gold and TCO certifications contradicts the DPIIT Office Memorandum dated 20.12.2022, which discourages restrictive and discriminatory tender conditions. Equivalent globally accepted certifications such as CB, CE, FCC, UL, and BIS were not permitted, effectively narrowing the field to a limited set of vendors.

Observers argue that this exclusionary design does not appear incidental, particularly after GeM itself highlighted the non-compliance.

Tender allegedly tailored to a single OEM

Stakeholders further allege that the tender’s over-reliance on the highly restrictive EPEAT Gold certification had the practical effect of aligning eligibility with the product portfolio of a single OEM, even though multiple OEMs operate in India and meet functional and safety requirements through other accepted standards. According to industry participants, EPEAT Gold at the specified configuration level is available with only one vendor, making the tender effectively single-OEM in design.

This concern is compounded by participation patterns: only three relatively small bidders reportedly qualified, leading to allegations of coordinated participation aligned to the restrictive framework. While no wrongdoing has been established, critics say such outcomes raise serious questions about genuine competition and price discovery.

National players sidelined, local firms favoured

By restricting nationally established OEMs and system integrators—who have proven, pan-India experience in executing large education deployments—the tender allegedly tilted towards local players. Critics say these firms lack comparable manufacturing depth, nationwide service networks, and execution capacity for a project of this scale, heightening delivery and long-term support risks.

Public savings ignored

Adding to the concern, manufacturers warned of severe global RAM and SSD price volatility and sought a two-to-three week bid extension, projecting savings of at least 10% of the total contract value. The request was rejected without recorded justification, and the tender was rushed to closure.

Quality benchmark diluted

The original tender included an IDC-based quality benchmark, a neutral indicator of product maturity and reliability. This clause was later removed through a corrigendum, even as other restrictive conditions were retained—effectively lowering quality safeguards while preserving entry barriers.

Call for investigation

“This is not a routine state purchase; it is a GoI-funded, PAB-approved project meant for school education,” industry sources said. Taken together—GeM’s warning, restrictive certifications, denial of extension despite potential savings, dilution of quality benchmarks, sidelining of national players, and allegations of a single-OEM-aligned design—the sequence of actions forms a pattern that warrants independent investigation.

The key question now is whether authorities will intervene to protect taxpayers’ money and students’ interests, or allow the concerns flagged—even by GeM—to go unexamined.