Public procurement has long been one of the areas most vulnerable to corruption in Nepal. Government contracts involving large sums of public money have historically been marred by collusion, intimidation, manipulation and unfair competition. The introduction of Electronic Bidding (E-bidding) was an important step toward addressing some of these problems by making the tendering process more transparent, accessible and competitive. That progress should not be reversed because the e-bidding system has been compromised. Reports that the electronic procurement system was hacked are undoubtedly serious. If unauthorized access allowed individuals or groups to view competitors’ financial proposals and manipulate bids at the last moment, it constitutes a grave breach of the procurement system and warrants a thorough investigation. Those responsible must be identified and prosecuted. The Central Investigation Bureau of Nepal Police is already investigating the matter. But addressing a security breach by scrapping e-bidding and returning to paper-based sealed tenders is the wrong response. The Public Procurement Monitoring Office's decision to instruct government offices to conduct procurement through paper-based bidding until further notice, citing security concerns, risks taking public procurement back to a system that had its own well-documented vulnerabilities. Sealed bidding was never synonymous with transparency or fair competition. Before E-bidding, bidders often had to physically visit offices to submit tenders, while intimidation, collusion, manipulation of sealed envelopes and other forms of interference were common complaints. There were also reports of clashes, assaults and criminal influence surrounding tender processes.
The Do's and Dont's before buying a laptop
E-bidding did not eliminate all these problems, but it significantly reduced the scope for some of them. More importantly, it allowed bidders to participate without having to be physically present at government offices, making the process more accessible and potentially more competitive. A cyberattack should therefore prompt the government to strengthen digital security, not abandon digitalisation. If the problem is a weakness in the security architecture, the obvious response is to fix that weakness. Encryption, multi-factor authentication, independent security assessments, regular security audits, stronger access controls and real-time monitoring can all help protect the system. The government should also examine whether the procurement platform has adequate safeguards against insider threats and unauthorised access. There is an important distinction between fixing a vulnerable digital system and dismantling it. Returning to paper because a digital system has been hacked would be comparable to abandoning an entire system of service delivery because its security mechanisms need improvement. It would address the symptom while leaving the underlying problem unresolved. The government must also be careful about the precedent it sets. If every major cyber incident leads to the abandonment of digital systems, there will be little incentive to invest in making those systems more secure. Digital transformation inevitably brings new risks, but those risks must be managed rather than used as a reason to retreat.
There are also legitimate concerns that a return to paper-based bidding could revive some of the old practices. Construction entrepreneurs have warned about the possibility of competitors being prevented from participating, collusion between bidders and officials, and contracts being distributed among a limited circle of businesses. These risks may be particularly significant outside Kathmandu, where access to tendering processes and oversight mechanisms can be more difficult. That does not mean paper-based bidding will automatically recreate every past problem. It does mean, however, that the government should not ignore the risks associated with abandoning a more accessible and transparent procurement mechanism. If a temporary return to sealed bidding is unavoidable while a security investigation is underway, the government must make that arrangement genuinely temporary. It should announce a clear deadline, explain what security measures are being introduced and publish a roadmap for restoring a secure e-bidding system. Public procurement should move toward greater transparency, not away from it. The answer to hacking is better cybersecurity, stronger oversight and greater accountability—not a return to a less transparent system. Nepal cannot build good governance by retreating whenever a digital reform encounters a problem. The government should fix the e-bidding system, make it more secure and restore confidence in it. Abandoning e-bidding in the name of preventing hacking would be a step in the wrong direction.
