Inside the blog that brought CBSE's OSM tender under scrutiny

What started as complaints over blurred answer sheets in the CBSE’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) system has grown into a larger controversy over the tender process and transparency. At the centre of the controversy is Sarthak Sidhant, a Class 12 student from Jharkhand, whose analysis of CBSE tender documents has triggered questions about how the board selected Hyderabad-based EduTeck Coempt to award a contract to implement the OSM system.

Over the past few weeks, Sidhant's findings have been amplified by opposition leaders, and are being shared widely on social media. While CBSE has strongly rejected allegations of irregularities and insisted that the procurement process followed government norms, the controversy has pushed the board's digital evaluation transition under spotlight.

The OSM system was introduced by CBSE for the evaluation of Class 12 answer books in 2026. Board wanted to digitise the assessment process and reduce manual handling of answer sheets.

Soon after commencement of the re-evaluation process, CBSE students accessed scanned copies of their answer sheets and posted complaints over social media. Several students reported blurred scans, missing pages, mismatched handwriting and even discrepancies in marking. The concerns went viral and prompted demands for greater transparency in the re-evaluation process.

The controversy deepened further when CBSE's post-result services portal faced technical and payment-related issues. It forced the board to delay parts of the re-evaluation process and bring in public sector banks to strengthen payment gateway infrastructure.

As scrutiny increased, attention gradually shifted from operational glitches to the company responsible for implementing the digital evaluation system. Soon after this Sarthak Sidhant began examining the tender process behind the OSM project.

Sidhant says he compared multiple versions of CBSE's Request for Proposal (RFP) documents, corrigenda and publicly available procurement records linked to the OSM project. His blog alleged that several eligibility and evaluation criteria were modified between different rounds of tendering.

Here's what Sarthak found

Inside the tender documents

Among the changes highlighted by him was the removal of clauses related to poor performance. According to Sidhant, earlier versions of the tender allowed disqualification of bidders based on previous poor performance, failure to complete contracts or financial weaknesses. He claims those provisions were omitted in later versions.

He also pointed to changes in blacklisting provisions. According to his analysis, an earlier version referred to companies that had been blacklisted in the past, while a later version referred only to entities that were currently blacklisted.

Sidhant further questioned changes in financial eligibility requirements. He argued that the financial years considered for calculating average turnover changed between tender rounds while the minimum turnover requirement remained unchanged at Rs 50 crore. He alleged that these changes enabled Coempt to meet the eligibility threshold.

Other modifications flagged by him include changes in Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) certification requirements, scanning specifications, infrastructure criteria, project experience requirements and software ownership conditions.

He has repeatedly maintained that his objective is not to oppose digitisation or the OSM system itself. Instead, he says he wants CBSE to explain why these changes were made and ensure greater transparency in public procurement.

"I hope CBSE answers my questions," he said in one of his interactions with the media.

CBSE's defence, tender timeline

CBSE has firmly rejected allegations that tender conditions were altered to favour any particular company. Board officials have stated that the OSM tender process went through three rounds because the initial attempts failed to produce a successful outcome.

According to officials, the first tender did not receive a successful bid and no bidder cleared the technical evaluation stage in the second round. Later the board reviewed the tender conditions and introduced modifications in the third round. It was done with an intention to improve participation and address operational concerns.

The third tender was issued in August 2025. Internal committee records cited in media indicate that both Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Coempt EduTeck qualified in the technical evaluation stage. However, Coempt emerged as the successful bidder after financial evaluation. The board officials have argued that procurement rules required the contract to be awarded to the lowest qualifying bidder which in this case was Coempt.

CBSE has maintained that all modifications were introduced in accordance with government procurement norms and were aimed at making the tender process more practical and competitive rather than favouring any company. The controversy has now expanded far beyond the technical aspects of answer-sheet scanning and evaluation.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi cited Sidhant's findings to question the tender process and demand greater accountability. Other leaders allege that technical requirements were repeatedly diluted until Coempt became eligible to secure the contract. They have called for an independent inquiry into the matter.