- Nepal's government issued directives for administrative reform while facing criticism over political interference in high-profile procurement processes.
- The Prime Minister’s Office abruptly canceled the Sunkoshi-Marin Diversion Project tender, sparking concerns over procedural transparency and executive pressure on bureaucrats.
- Critics argue the intervention bypassed formal review mechanisms and utilized police involvement, undermining governance standards and national infrastructure goals.
- Experts warn that arbitrary cancellations risk inflating project costs and damaging investor confidence in Nepal's public service delivery.
Kathmandu, Nepal: The Nepali government recently issued a firm directive to civil servants, urging them to elevate administrative efficiency, maintain strict financial discipline, and ensure accountable public service delivery. However, a high-profile intervention in the tender process of the Sunkoshi-Marin Diversion Project has cast a shadow over these reform efforts, raising serious questions about the administration’s own adherence to governance standards.
A Push for Reform vs. Questionable Interventions
During a meeting at Singha Durbar chaired by Chief Secretary Govinda Bahadur Karki, government secretaries outlined plans to streamline public services and expedite the current fiscal year’s policies and programs. Agencies were tasked with settling audit irregularities, enhancing market monitoring, and improving public service delivery ahead of the festive season.
While these directives signal an intent to improve administration, recent events have sparked debate over whether the executive branch is following the rules it expects bureaucrats to uphold.
At the center of the controversy is the abrupt cancellation of the Sunkoshi-Marin Diversion Project tender. Six companies had originally submitted bids for the construction of the project's dam, powerhouse, and related structures. Following technical evaluations, three qualified, and their financial proposals were scheduled to be opened on November 2. Instead, the government canceled the entire bidding process at the eleventh hour.
Controversy Surrounding the Cancellation
The cancellation followed sudden intervention by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Notably, Director General of the Department of Water Resources and Irrigation Dinesh Rajouria and project director Krishna Prasad Rijal were escorted to Singha Durbar via police intervention while Irrigation Minister Biraj Bhakta Shrestha was abroad. Although the PMO disputed reports of detention—stating they were merely called for clarification—the optics of the move drew immediate criticism.
The government defended its actions by claiming the procurement process violated amended Public Procurement Regulations. Under revised Rule 26(a), major construction projects costing over NPR 1.5 billion must explicitly specify the weighting of technical and financial proposals in bidding documents, a rule the project allegedly bypassed by operating under older guidelines.
Critics and procurement experts, however, point out several glaring inconsistencies:
Delayed Recognition: If the tender documents were flawed, why wasn't the discrepancy identified earlier instead of waiting until the final evaluation stage?
Legal Ambiguity: The project office cited Section 3(2) of the Public Procurement Act to justify the cancellation, but experts argue this provision does not independently grant the authority to scrap active tenders.
Bypassing the Chain of Command: Rather than leveraging formal ministerial review mechanisms, the PMO bypassed the absent irrigation minister and utilized police intervention to summon bureaucrats.
Broader Implications for Infrastructure and Governance
This incident mirrors past controversies, such as the disputed passport-printing contract involving German companies, where the Prime Minister's Secretariat reportedly pushed for termination against the advice of technical ministries. Both cases highlight a recurring problem: political interference in professional bureaucratic duties and blurred lines of executive authority.
For the Sunkoshi-Marin project—designed to provide year-round irrigation to 122,000 hectares across five Madhesh Province districts and generate 31.07 megawatts of electricity—the delays are costly. With the previous contractor's agreement already terminated in November 2025 due to slow progress, the new cancellation injects profound uncertainty into a vital national infrastructure asset.
While the government claims the revised procurement system will save the state NPR 2–3 billion, experts emphasize that such claims require transparent financial validation comparing actual market prices, technical criteria, and bids received. Arbitrary rule changes and sudden cancellations risk inflating long-term costs and discouraging future investors.
Moving Forward: Rebuilding Accountability
To restore credibility and protect national projects, administrative experts suggest the government take concrete steps:
Define Clear Boundaries: Establish explicit boundaries outlining the responsibilities of ministers, secretaries, departments, and project chiefs.
Document Political Directives: Any political instructions affecting ongoing procurement must be formally recorded in writing alongside their specific legal justifications.
Utilize Established Review Mechanisms: Procurement disputes should be resolved through legal review bodies rather than direct pressure on individual civil servants.
Ultimately, the administration's reform agenda will not be measured by the volume of directives it issues, but by whether public funds are prudently spent, projects are delivered on time, and bureaucratic integrity is protected. If the government demands lawful behavior from its civil servants, its political leadership must lead by example.
