Across the full awards corpus: the biggest winners by value, how concentrated each sector is, and the vendors who win almost entirely without competition.
Contract values are published inconsistently by buyers (mixed units, and notional amounts for things like bank empanelment), so value-based rankings and concentration are directional and under verification. The contract-count and single-bid columns are the robust ones. We are reconciling values against source records before treating any rupee figure as final.
Vendors with 30+ wins whose contracts are mostly single-bid. A high share means they rarely face a competing bidder - a capture signal worth a closer look (not proof of anything).
Herfindahl index (HHI) of awarded value per sector - higher means a few vendors capture most of the money. The single biggest vendor's share is shown alongside.
HHI under 0.15 ~ competitive, 0.15-0.25 ~ moderately concentrated, above 0.25 ~ highly concentrated.
A sharper signal than any single contract is a buyer-vendor relationship that recurs without competition: the same company winning again and again from the same department, almost always as the only bidder. Names are withheld - this is a capture signal worth examining, not proof of wrongdoing.
A lighter cousin of corporate-network analysis, built from the awards data alone: distinct winning companies that list the same registered address. A shared address can be a genuine business complex or shared agent, so this is a flag to investigate, not proof - and the bidder-address field is only partly filled, so these are floors.