EPFO Revamp Raises Eyebrows: Reform or this is to favor specific bidder?

EPFO Overhaul under question: Is Transparency being compromised?

New Delhi 

The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), custodian of retirement savings for over 27 crore Indian workers, is undergoing a much-anticipated digital overhaul. However, recent developments around its Expression of Interest (EOI) issued for selection of an Agency for implementing, operating and maintaining an IT platform for management of various social security schemes administered by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has raised serious questions among participants and industry observers regarding transparency, fairness, and the possibility of undue favouritism.

the proposed EOI for selection of an Agency have raised red flags over transparency, fairness, and potential bias in the tendering process.

At the heart of the controversy is a clause within the EOI that mandates bidders to have implemented the proposed Core Banking Solution (CBS) in a scheduled commercial bank. While this may seem like a standard qualification benchmark, industry experts argue that it is misaligned with the actual scope of work — and may be a thinly veiled attempt to favour a specific vendor.

A CBS for EPFO? Why?

The EPFO is not a bank. Its operations revolve around managing member accounts, contributions, withdrawals, and pension disbursements — all functions that require robust data systems and user-facing digital platforms, but not necessarily a full-fledged CBS like those used by banks to manage core financial transactions.

Yet, the EOI’s language appears to heavily favour platforms like Infosys Finacle, a banking solution with limited relevance to EPFO’s specific needs. Multiple stakeholders have noted that the EOI’s technical specifications align suspiciously closely with Finacle’s capabilities, suggesting a pre-determined outcome in what should be a competitive and open procurement process.

Restrictive Criteria, Limited Participation

Several bidders have expressed concerns that the criteria — especially the CBS implementation condition — are restrictive in nature, effectively disqualifying competent firms that may have experience in large-scale digital public infrastructure, but not specifically in banking CBS deployment.

(Name of the company those who took part in Pre- EOI meeting: TCS, Infosys, Finacle, Wipro, CIPL, AWS, HCL Software)

“This is not just bad procurement design — it’s anti-innovation,” said a senior executive from a leading Indian IT firm. “The EPFO’s needs are unique. Limiting the playing field to banking CBS vendors defeats the very purpose of finding the best-fit solution.”

Such restrictive tender conditions also violate the principles laid down in the General Financial Rules (GFR) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines, which emphasize fair competition, transparency, and value-for-public money procurement.

Is Price Discovery at Risk?

With limited vendor participation, price discovery may be severely compromised, leading to inflated project costs. And in a project of this scale — with taxpayer funds and the future of millions of account holders at stake — this is a concern that cannot be brushed aside.

Many are now demanding that the EPFO allow demonstrations, technical presentations, or proof-of-concept evaluations from a wider pool of vendors, instead of creating a pretext to hand over the project to a known entity.

A Familiar Pattern?

This is not the first-time questions have been raised about digital procurement in public institutions being seemingly tailored to favour certain vendors. The current EOI, some allege, is part of a growing trend where project designs mirror the product specifications of one company, effectively excluding all other potential players.

If true, this practice not only undermines public trust but also shortchanges the government itself by preventing the discovery of potentially better, cheaper, and more innovative solutions.

What’s Next?

As the deadline for EOI responses approaches, the EPFO now faces increasing pressure from civil society and industry bodies to review and revise the qualification criteria to reflect the true nature of the work  and ensure a genuinely competitive, transparent, and open procurement process.

Otherwise, critics warn, this revamp may go down not as a landmark in digital reform, but as a scam in broad daylight — with the public and the provident fund subscribers paying the price.