The Government e-Marketplace (GeM) achieved a cumulative Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) of Rs18.4 lakh crore in 2025–26. In an interview with TNIE, Mihir Kumar, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Government e-Marketplace, spoke about the launch of foreign bidding and the measures being taken to ensure fair pricing on the portal. Edited excerpts:
How does GeM benchmark prices in real time, and why did that mechanism not prevent potential overpricing?
For cases that have already been concluded and where contracts have materialised, the scope is largely limited to punitive action by the buyer. Each case is unique, so it is difficult to generalise. However, one broad point is that prices on the portal are dynamic and keep changing.
If a buyer feels that prices on GeM are high — even hypothetically — tools are available to assess them. The Business Intelligence (BI) tool provides historical price trends over the past six months, including the number of contracts awarded and the prices at which they were awarded. This information is also visible within the catalogue itself, so buyers are not without reference points.
Price reasonability is ultimately the responsibility of the buyer. If a price appears excessive, the buyer should pause the procurement process and bring it to our notice, rather than proceeding with the purchase. Had such concerns been flagged earlier, we could have examined them.
If issues are raised, we examine them and, if required, engage with the reseller. We also take proactive steps — this year alone, we blocked over 10.5 lakh listings, primarily due to concerns over overpricing. Prices on GeM should not become outliers compared with the broader market.
Why has the procurement share of the Ministry of Coal and Coal India declined, and which other ministries or CPSEs have seen a rise in their share this year?
The maximum impact has been in the coal sector, though there are a few other areas where we have seen some decline. By and large, however, other CPSEs have performed better — power sector entities have improved, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has remained broadly stable, and Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) has shown better performance.
The key factor is the scale of Coal India Limited. Its procurement dropped from around ₹2 lakh crore to about Rs82,000 crore — a decline of roughly Rs1.2 lakh crore. Given Coal India’s significantly larger base compared with other CPSEs, this has had a disproportionate impact on the overall numbers.
Among CPSEs, Coal India leads by a wide margin, typically conducting business in the range of Rs80,000 crore to Rs1 lakh crore, while entities such as NTPC Limited operate in the Rs17,000–25,000 crore range. It is this high base and the subsequent decline that has driven the overall drop.
In which sectors do you expect the maximum participation from foreign bidders, now that GeM has opened up to them?
We will examine global tenders floated by various ministries on the CPPP portal to gain insights. Offhand, defence appears to be a strong candidate. Scientific ministries and several other departments could also see participation from foreign bidders.
Bidding will not be limited to countries with which India has free trade agreements (FTAs); companies from other countries will also be allowed to participate. As of now, we have not yet seen any global tender come onto the platform, though the functionality is fully operational.
We will be driving this initiative in consultation with buyers, since they have not yet tested this functionality on the portal. We will need to engage with and convince them to use it.
What is the current status of the disputes raised by Bihar (on pricing concerns) and Andhra Pradesh (on Chromebook procurement via GeM), and how is GeM addressing these issues?
In the case of Andhra Pradesh, the Chromebook procurement has been re-tendered, so that issue has been addressed. As for the Bihar case, it has been referred for investigation.
While I may not recall the exact specifics, such cases often involve pricing distortions arising from additional requirements introduced by the buyer.
The Bihar case pertains to price parity, and the investigation is still ongoing. We have a structured follow-up mechanism — cases referred to buyers are periodically reviewed, and we coordinate with nodal officers in the states to seek updates. If the buyer reports that corrective action has been taken, the case is closed. If any deficiency is found on the portal’s part, we undertake the necessary corrective measures.
Have any measures been taken against vendors or officials in connection with these cases?
Stakeholders on the portal are free to submit email representations flagging concerns. All such cases are first examined based on the data available with us, after which the buyer is given an opportunity to conduct a further investigation.
We also maintain continuous follow-up with the buyer. In the Bihar case, we are yet to receive a response from the buyer, although I will need to verify whether one has come in meanwhile. Once the response is received, we will assess its adequacy and, if required, take it up again with the buyer for a review of their position, depending on the situation.