<p>What was meant to be a Rs 65 crore advertising tender by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (BMRCL) has become contentious, with several bidders alleging that the process lacks transparency and may have been structured to favour a particular player. If these charges hold merit, they point to an urgent need for stronger oversight and greater accountability in awarding public contracts. </p><p>After a seven-year gap, BMRCL invited bids to grant advertising rights on 8,755 metro pillars across the city. However, participants have raised several questions regarding the tender structure. The contract runs for 12 years, extendable by three, an unusually long period for an advertising concession. </p><p>Moreover, all existing and future corridors have been bundled into a single package, a move that restricts competition and effectively excludes smaller or local firms from participating. </p>.<p>The technical evaluation process has also drawn criticism. Thirty marks are reportedly allotted for a presentation before BMRCL officials — a highly subjective parameter that bidders argue allows room for excessive discretion. In addition, prior experience in handling metro-pillar advertising, which could have served as a basic eligibility criterion, has instead been given additional weightage under the scoring system. The bidders claim this disproportionately benefits a specific company. If these apprehensions are true, the financial consequences could be substantial. </p><p>Some estimates suggest that Namma Metro could lose as much as Rs 25 crore a year — nearly Rs 375 crore over 15 years — if competition is curtailed. Advertising revenue forms an important part of Metro’s non-fare income, and any shortfall here directly impacts its ability to fund network expansion and service debt.</p>.<p>These issues also raise broader questions about governance and institutional oversight. The BMRCL Board of Directors is composed entirely of government officers. As an unlisted joint venture of the state and Union governments, the corporation is exempt from appointing independent directors, resulting in a lack of external checks on critical decisions. It is worth asking whether the board examined this tender in detail, and whether the Audit Committee subjected it to adequate scrutiny. </p><p>Although BMRCL has a chief vigilance officer, ambiguity persists over whether bodies such as the Lokayukta or Lokpal have jurisdiction over such joint ventures. This institutional gap highlights the broader need to establish clear accountability mechanisms for such entities. </p><p>Given the seriousness of the allegations, BMRCL should commission an independent expert committee to review the tender, examine all complaints, and recommend corrective measures. If irregularities are confirmed, the tender must be reissued to ensure maximum revenue for BMRCL. Public assets deserve open, competitive, and fair processes, and not opaque procedures that raise suuspicon and erode trust.</p>
<p>What was meant to be a Rs 65 crore advertising tender by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (BMRCL) has become contentious, with several bidders alleging that the process lacks transparency and may have been structured to favour a particular player. If these charges hold merit, they point to an urgent need for stronger oversight and greater accountability in awarding public contracts. </p><p>After a seven-year gap, BMRCL invited bids to grant advertising rights on 8,755 metro pillars across the city. However, participants have raised several questions regarding the tender structure. The contract runs for 12 years, extendable by three, an unusually long period for an advertising concession. </p><p>Moreover, all existing and future corridors have been bundled into a single package, a move that restricts competition and effectively excludes smaller or local firms from participating. </p>.<p>The technical evaluation process has also drawn criticism. Thirty marks are reportedly allotted for a presentation before BMRCL officials — a highly subjective parameter that bidders argue allows room for excessive discretion. In addition, prior experience in handling metro-pillar advertising, which could have served as a basic eligibility criterion, has instead been given additional weightage under the scoring system. The bidders claim this disproportionately benefits a specific company. If these apprehensions are true, the financial consequences could be substantial. </p><p>Some estimates suggest that Namma Metro could lose as much as Rs 25 crore a year — nearly Rs 375 crore over 15 years — if competition is curtailed. Advertising revenue forms an important part of Metro’s non-fare income, and any shortfall here directly impacts its ability to fund network expansion and service debt.</p>.<p>These issues also raise broader questions about governance and institutional oversight. The BMRCL Board of Directors is composed entirely of government officers. As an unlisted joint venture of the state and Union governments, the corporation is exempt from appointing independent directors, resulting in a lack of external checks on critical decisions. It is worth asking whether the board examined this tender in detail, and whether the Audit Committee subjected it to adequate scrutiny. </p><p>Although BMRCL has a chief vigilance officer, ambiguity persists over whether bodies such as the Lokayukta or Lokpal have jurisdiction over such joint ventures. This institutional gap highlights the broader need to establish clear accountability mechanisms for such entities. </p><p>Given the seriousness of the allegations, BMRCL should commission an independent expert committee to review the tender, examine all complaints, and recommend corrective measures. If irregularities are confirmed, the tender must be reissued to ensure maximum revenue for BMRCL. Public assets deserve open, competitive, and fair processes, and not opaque procedures that raise suuspicon and erode trust.</p>
