Cost row intensifies as Bengaluru’s sweeping machines priced for ‘365-day peak performance’
The Greater Bengaluru Authority’s defence of the ₹613-crore mechanical sweeping project has triggered fresh scrutiny after documents revealed that the cost estimates are based on maximum daily utilisation of the machines with no allowance for weekly off-days, breakdowns, repairs or non-operational hours.
According to the rate analysis released by the authority, each sweeping machine is expected to run 40 km every single day, amounting to 14,400 km per year (40 km × 30 days × 12 months).
The calculations clearly assume zero downtime, even though the same document lists recurring expenses for repairs, tyre replacements, and maintenance — raising the question of how a machine undergoing repairs can simultaneously deliver full-day output.
Industry observers say it is unusual for heavy civic machinery to be booked for 365 operating days, as standard utilisation is generally calculated on 280–300 days per year after accounting for maintenance, fuel shortages, staff absence, weather restrictions, public events and breakdowns.
Mechanical sweeping contractors in other major cities typically factor in: 2–4 days per month for servicing, Occasional stoppage due to rain or emergency traffic restrictions and Seasonal downtime for road works and rerouting
A retired civic engineer who reviewed the document — speaking on condition of anonymity — said the GBA was “pricing the project using an ideal world spreadsheet rather than a real-world street scenario”. If a machine runs fewer kilometres than projected, the cost per kilometre automatically shoots up, leaving the civic body exposed to the accusation that the ₹895/km figure is artificially deflated on paper.
The document also builds the financial model on peak staffing strength every day — two drivers, three cleaners and one supervisor per machine — without specifying whether replacement crew costs would apply during leave, absenteeism or machine downtime.
Opposition leaders and transparency activists are interpreting this as a possible red flag. The fact that “full operational output every single day” has been used as the basis for a seven-year lease-financing model has led to allegations that the cost sheet is structured to arrive at the highest possible final project value rather than the most realistic one.
A civic expenditure analyst summed up the concern bluntly:
“If you design the model on perfect performance with zero downtime, the cost ceiling will always look justified. That doesn’t mean it reflects reality.”
While the authority insists that the tender process was fully compliant and backed by engineering estimates, critics have pointed out that: a more moderate utilisation assumption would have resulted in a lower cost projection downtime correction factors are standard engineering practice the paperwork does not reveal any independent benchmarking against other metropolitan cities.