By: Staff Writer
September 28, Colombo (LNW): Sri Lanka’s Unique Digital Identity project has developed into more than a technology programme. It is also a significant test of how a recipient country manages a strategically important national system when financing, technology and contractor-selection mechanisms are closely connected to a foreign government.
The Indian connection is central to the project. SLUDI is based on India’s MOSIP platform, while the original implementation funding came through an Indian Government grant. More importantly, India’s National Institute for Smart Government (NISG) managed the pre-qualification process that produced the five shortlisted Indian companies for the Master Systems Integrator contract.
This arrangement does not by itself establish improper influence. Indeed, available project documentation identifies the Government of Sri Lanka as the end procurer, while NISG acts as the project-management consultant within the bilateral arrangement. But because the project involves citizens’ biometric information and core national digital infrastructure, the procurement structure deserves unusually strong transparency.
The immediate complication is money.
The original Indian grant was approximately INR 3 billion, but the financial proposals submitted by the shortlisted bidders reportedly exceeded that amount by more than two times. The lowest evaluated proposal was reported at around INR 7 billion. Sri Lanka consequently sought discussions with India over additional funding before completing the MSI selection.
That creates an important policy question: how should contractor selection operate when the funding country is also deeply involved in the procurement architecture?
Sri Lanka needs clear answers before the final contract is signed.
The evaluation criteria should be publicly documented, including the technical, financial, cybersecurity and data-protection requirements. The final selection should be supported by a transparent record showing why the successful bidder met the requirements, rather than allowing the size of the revised grant to determine the outcome.
There is also a broader issue of technological sovereignty.
The proposed model envisages an Indian MSI initially building the system and a Sri Lankan Managed Service Provider eventually taking over long-term operations. ICTA says the arrangement is intended to ensure knowledge transfer and sustainable local capacity. The success of that model will depend on whether Sri Lanka actually possesses the technical expertise to operate, audit, secure and modify the platform independently after the foreign integrator exits.
The Government should therefore insist on contractual provisions covering source-code access where appropriate, independent security audits, disaster recovery, data localisation, breach notification, technology transfer, staff training and clearly defined exit arrangements.
The delayed contractor decision may ultimately provide an opportunity to strengthen the project rather than merely accelerate it.
India’s assistance can be valuable in financing and technology transfer. But the national digital identity system will ultimately belong to Sri Lanka and affect every citizen. The funding relationship should therefore not weaken Sri Lanka’s responsibility for procurement transparency, data protection, accountability and long-term technological independence.
The post India’s Funding Role Puts Contractor Selection under Scrutiny appeared first on LNW Lanka News Web.
