The Illusion of Transparency at BMCH. Public Asset, Private Process? BMCH’s Janaushadhi Kendra Procurement Process Faces Tough Legal and Ethical Questions. Question arise – whether an Expression of Interest can replace a competitive public tender for commercial allotments?
A newspaper advertisement that has now surfaced in connection with the proposed Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra (PMBJK) at Barpeta Medical College and Hospital (BMCH) has added a new...
A newspaper advertisement that has now surfaced in connection with the proposed Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Kendra (PMBJK) at Barpeta Medical College and Hospital (BMCH) has added a new dimension to the controversy surrounding the selection process. While the notice confirms that an Expression of Interest (EOI) was published in The Assam Tribune on June 5, it has simultaneously intensified a more fundamental question: Can an EOI legally substitute an open competitive tender where public assets and public revenue are involved?
The emergence of the advertisement effectively answers one aspect of the controversy—the process was not entirely without public notice. However, it leaves unresolved the far more significant issue of procurement law: whether inviting an EOI, without a structured financial bidding process, satisfies the standards of transparency, competitiveness and value-for-money expected from a government institution.
That question now lies at the heart of the dispute.
The advertisement, issued under the authority of the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent of BMCH, invited EOIs from individuals and firms engaged in pharmaceutical retailing to establish a PMBJK within the medical college premises. Interested applicants were asked to collect documents from the office of the Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent and submit them within twenty-one days.
Conspicuously absent from the notice, however, are details ordinarily associated with a competitive tender for commercial allotment. The advertisement does not indicate whether bidders were required to quote licence fees or rent, whether comparative financial bids would be evaluated, how competing applicants would be ranked, or the precise methodology for awarding the allotment.
Procurement specialists point out that these omissions are not merely procedural. They go to the heart of public procurement.
An Expression of Interest is generally recognised as a preliminary market-discovery exercise intended to identify capable participants before the commencement of a formal procurement process. It is not ordinarily regarded as the procurement process itself.
Where government property is proposed to be allotted to a private operator for commercial use, the accepted norm is a transparent tender inviting both technical and financial bids so that public authorities obtain not only a technically qualified operator but also the best financial value for public assets.
If an EOI alone became the basis for final selection without a subsequent competitive tender, procurement experts say, the process could invite serious questions regarding compliance with established principles of public procurement.
The issue assumes greater significance because the proposed PMBJK would operate from premises belonging to a government medical college managed through public resources. Such premises constitute public assets, and their commercial utilisation is generally expected to follow principles of fairness, equality and maximum public benefit.
Legal observers note that the Supreme Court has consistently held that government contracts and allotments must satisfy constitutional standards of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. While authorities possess administrative discretion in designing procurement procedures, that discretion cannot dilute competition or create the perception of favouring a limited class of applicants without adequate justification.
The controversy also raises another question. If BMCH intended to undertake only an EOI exercise, what procurement stage was to follow? Was there a detailed tender document? Was there a financial bid? Were competing commercial offers compared? Were evaluation criteria published in advance? Was the Hospital Management Society assured the best possible return?
These questions remain unanswered.
The newly surfaced advertisement does not itself answer them.
Indeed, some procurement professionals argue that publication of an EOI may strengthen—not weaken—the demand for greater disclosure, because it establishes that BMCH consciously chose an EOI route instead of issuing a conventional tender document setting out financial evaluation criteria.
The distinction between an EOI and a tender is far from semantic.
An EOI primarily identifies interested and technically capable participants. A tender determines who secures the contract through a defined evaluation process. One tests capability; the other determines entitlement.
Replacing one with the other, procurement specialists caution, risks reducing competition where public resources are involved.
The controversy is also likely to focus attention on the administrative leadership of BMCH. As Principal-cum-Chief Superintendent, Dr. Ramen Talukdar approved the notice inviting the EOI. Whether the adopted procedure complied with applicable procurement rules and whether it adequately protected public interest are matters that may now require official clarification.
The Government of Assam may also have to examine whether the allotment involved only technical evaluation or whether financial competition formed part of the decision-making process. If no financial evaluation was undertaken, questions could arise over whether the Hospital Management Society had an opportunity to maximise revenue from a publicly owned commercial space.
At the same time, the publication of the EOI advertisement demonstrates that the institution did make a public announcement in at least one widely circulated newspaper. That development narrows the controversy from one of complete absence of public notice to a more nuanced—and arguably more consequential—question about the legality and adequacy of the procurement methodology itself.
Ultimately, the issue is no longer whether BMCH issued an advertisement. It is whether the procedure adopted fulfilled the legal obligations of a public institution entrusted with managing public assets.
Until BMCH discloses the complete selection records—including the evaluation criteria, financial assessment, comparative statements and the legal basis for adopting an EOI instead of an open competitive tender—the controversy is unlikely to subside.
The public interest now demands transparency not merely in advertisement, but in the entire decision-making process.
No Comment! Be the first one.