
MoRTH proposes tripling performance guarantees for bids 30% below estimates. ICRA says a 60% discount would require 21% security, up from 12%. The move targets stalled projects and arbitration cases.
India's road transport ministry has proposed a steep increase in performance guarantees for contractors who bid more than 30% below the government's estimated project cost. The move targets a pattern of aggressive underbidding that has left dozens of highway projects stalled or in arbitration.
The ministry of road transport and highways (MoRTH) released the draft framework last month after an internal review found that abnormally low bids were the single biggest cause of execution failures. Contractors winning work at steep discounts have repeatedly run into financial stress from rising construction costs and tight liquidity, leading to contract modifications, timeline extensions and stalled works.
Under the current rules, a contractor bidding 60% below the estimate must post total performance security of about 12% of the bid price. The new framework would push that to 21%, according to ICRA estimates. For a 40% discount, the requirement rises to 11% from roughly 8%.
The math works like this. Bids more than 10% below the estimate already attract additional security of 0.1% for each percentage point below 10%. Discounts beyond 20% trigger an extra 0.2% per point. The proposed change adds a third tier: any discount beyond 30% requires additional security of 0.5% per point, on top of the standard 3% performance guarantee.
ICRA data shows how widespread the problem has become. About 71% of NHAI and MoRTH EPC projects awarded over the past three years went at discounts exceeding 20%. The median bid discount across central government road projects has topped 30% for two straight years. The trend has also infected HAM projects, where average bid discounts hit 21% during the first 10 months of fiscal 2025-26, up from 16% the prior year.
The security will be locked for years. Twenty-five percent releases after the Commercial Operation Date, assuming on-time completion. Another 25% comes a year later if pavement quality and riding standards pass inspection. The remaining 50% waits until the defect liability period ends. The ministry also proposed penalties for substandard pavement quality found during independent inspections.
Kushal Kumar Singh, a partner at Deloitte India, said similar provisions already exist in some HAM contracts. Extending them across all contracting formats should bring more discipline to highway bidding, he said. The move will also push lenders and credit rating agencies to scrutinise project viability and contractor risk more closely, Singh added.
ICRA's Suprio Banerjee said the proposal should discourage irrational pricing and reduce execution gaps caused by financially stretched contractors. He cautioned that higher bank guarantee requirements could initially raise financing costs for smaller companies. Over time, the rules should encourage participation by stronger, better-capitalised players, Banerjee said.
Sanjay Kumar Sinha, founder and managing director of Chaitanya Projects Consultancy, said excessively low bids have frequently led to financial stress, delays, contractual disputes and compromised project quality. Requiring higher performance guarantees strikes a balance between preserving competition and ensuring projects go to contractors with the financial capacity to finish them, he argued.
The proposal marks a shift from awarding projects to the lowest bidder at any cost toward prioritising financially sustainable bids. Smaller contractors will face the biggest squeeze on working capital and bank guarantee costs. Larger, better-capitalised companies are expected to adapt more easily.
MoRTH has not set a timeline for finalising the rules. The draft is open for stakeholder comments.
Drafted by a large language model from the source reporting linked above, then screened by automated publishing checks. It is not read by a journalist before publication. Some articles cite our Alpha Score. Verify prices and figures against the original source. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.