Dr. Abhinaav Mane from VGeotech Experts shares views on L1 Bidding System

Under the L1 system, geotechnical investigations and regular quality testing, which are the very foundation of safe infrastructure, are reduced to a price game. This saves little upfront but leads to weak designs, premature failures, higher life-cycle costs, and risks to public safety.

Dr. Abhinav Mane
Managing Director
VGeotech Experts

L1 Bidding: A Growing Concern in Infrastructure

India’s infrastructure sector is witnessing unprecedented growth, with projects ranging from expressways and airports to metros, renewable hubs, and high-speed rail. Modern technologies like BIM, digital monitoring, and mechanized construction are enhancing efficiency. Yet, one recurring concern threatens to undermine this progress: the L1 (lowest bidder) contracting system.

By awarding projects primarily on the lowest financial offer, the model often sidelines technical competence and quality assurance. While it may ensure transparency and cost control at the tendering stage, its long-term implications on durability, safety, and life-cycle costs are increasingly evident.

Geotechnical Investigations: The First Casualty

From a geotechnical standpoint, the risks of the L1 system are stark. Site investigations represent a very small percentage of project budgets, yet they are critical for sound design. Soil exploration, groundwater profiling, and in-situ testing provide the foundation data for safe and economical structures.

However, under the L1 framework, such studies are typically assigned to lowest-cost agencies, resulting in inadequate borehole coverage, poor-quality sampling, or outdated testing methods. Incomplete or unreliable data leads to unsafe assumptions in foundation and structural design. What should serve as the bedrock of project planning becomes a weak link, exposing the project to long-term risks.

Quality Testing Under Cost Pressures

The issue extends to material testing and quality control. With quality responsibilities placed within the contractor’s scope, laboratories are often selected on the basis of price rather than expertise or accreditation. As a result, critical tests on concrete strength, soil compaction, and material durability may be carried out superficially, or even neglected.

Similarly, when structural design is bundled under the contractor’s responsibility, budget pressures may drive the choice of consultants who cut corners on codal provisions or adopt simplistic designs. While this enables quicker and cheaper completion, it creates vulnerabilities that emerge years later in the form of premature deterioration or failures.

Risks and Long-Term Costs

The implications of this cost-driven approach are visible across project types. Foundation distress arises from inadequate soil characterization, leading to uneven settlement. Slope failures in highways and rail projects can be traced to superficial geotechnical analysis. Reduced durability of pavements, bridges, and buildings stems from weak quality control. Life cycle costs escalate, where initial savings are dwarfed by repeated maintenance, retrofitting, and rehabilitation.

Such outcomes underline a paradox: while L1 contracting reduces upfront expenditure, it often results in higher cumulative costs and, more critically, endangers public safety.

Bridging the Gap: Realigning Objectives

At the heart of the problem lies a misalignment of stakeholder objectives. Contractors are driven by profit and timely completion, while geotechnical experts, testing professionals, and designers are mandated to uphold codal provisions and safeguard quality. When contractors control the hiring of experts, the balance tilts toward cost minimization, undermining independence and thoroughness.

To address this, procurement practices need structural reform. Independent appointment of technical experts, adoption of Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS), life cycle costing, performance-linked contracts, and mandatory third-party audits can safeguard against cost-driven compromises and ensure quality outcomes.