The state of Odisha is currently undertaking one of its most ambitious law enforcement upgrades in recent history. In an effort to combat a rising tide of digital crime—ranging from financial fraud to sophisticated cyber-attacks—the Odisha Police has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to establish cyber forensic laboratories across 34 districts, anchored by a central hub in Bhubaneswar. The initiative represents a critical modernization effort, promising to equip officers with the high-end tools necessary to parse terabytes of data and secure digital evidence.
However, a detailed examination of the 87-page tender document suggests that the path to this technological leap may be narrower than intended. While the goal is broad capability, the technical fine print appears to align with the proprietary offerings of specific manufacturers. Legal and forensic experts who have reviewed the document point out that several clauses invoke trademarked feature names and highly specific hardware configurations, raising questions about whether the tender—perhaps inadvertently—excludes a wide field of capable competitors in favor of a pre-determined ecosystem.
The ‘Fingerprints’ in the Fine Print
In the world of government procurement, the “General Financial Rules” (GFR) serve as the bedrock for fair play, explicitly mandating that tenders should not mention specific brand names or trademarks to ensure an open bidding process. Yet, the technical specifications listed in this RFP contain terminology that is unique to a single software provider.
For instance, the document lists a requirement for a specific type of “RAM image” file format and a “refined” analysis feature that are not industry-standard terms but rather the trademarked property of one particular European forensic software company. By demanding support for these specific proprietary formats, the tender effectively disqualifies other top-tier global forensic suites—tools that are widely used by federal agencies worldwide but do not utilize that specific competitor’s trademarked terminology.
The hardware specifications invite similar scrutiny. The tender calls for a “retractable ice tray” internal cooler for suspected drives—a highly niche component found in the custom workstations of a specific boutique vendor, rather than a standard requirement for forensic analysis. Furthermore, the request for a specific model number of a “forensic universal bridge” mirrors the product code of a single American manufacturer. In an open market, a tender would typically ask for a “hardware write-blocker with SATA/IDE support,” allowing multiple vendors to compete on price and performance. By listing specific model numbers and niche hardware quirks, the document risks signaling that only one specific supplier need apply.
Certification and Training Hurdles
Beyond the hardware and software specifics, the tender introduces administrative requirements that further narrow the pool of potential bidders. One notable inclusion is the demand for a specific quality certificate issued by German agencies (TUV), a standard less common among American or Asian technology giants who may adhere to ISO standards but not this specific European certification. This requirement, while perhaps intended to ensure quality, inadvertently tilts the playing field toward vendors with specific European supply chains.
The RFP also mandates that training for certain tools must be conducted by an “Authorized Training Partner” (ATP). While training is essential for complex forensic systems, this specific stipulation is applied selectively—only for certain tools and not others. Industry analysts suggest that this mirrors the business model of the same vendor whose features appear in the technical specs, as they operate a rigid ATP network. This creates a scenario where a bidder could offer a legitimate license for the software but be disqualified because they are not part of that specific vendor’s exclusive training franchise, effectively locking the state into a monopoly on both the product and the instruction.
Structural Barriers and the Path to Correction
The final layer of complexity lies in the eligibility criteria for the bidders themselves. The tender expressly prohibits “consortium bidding,” a standard practice in large-scale integration projects where specialized firms—one expert in video forensics, another in server infrastructure—partner to offer a complete solution. By banning this, and simultaneously setting a high revenue turnover requirement of ₹50 Crore, the RFP effectively eliminates the actual Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and smaller, specialized forensic firms. Instead, it favors large, generalist system integrators who act as middlemen.
These exclusionary clauses, combined with the “copy-paste” nature of the technical specs, stand in contrast to the spirit of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines, which advocate for broad, generic specifications to maximize value for public money.
However, procurement experts note that such issues are often rectifiable before a contract is awarded. In many cases, “tailor-made” specs are the result of legacy templates or over-reliance on a single consultant’s advice rather than malice. The window for pre-bid queries offers a crucial opportunity for the Odisha Police to address these anomalies. By broadening the language—changing specific model numbers to functional requirements and removing proprietary trademark names—the state can ensure that its new cyber labs are built on the best technology the global market has to offer, rather than the catalogue of a single firm.
