The ministry of road transport and highways (MoRTH) has tightened performance-rating norms for detailed project report (DPR) consultants to better reflect their real responsibility on highway projects.
Since DPRs shape a project's design, cost, land needs and approvals, weak ones often trigger costly delays and disputes during execution.
Mint explains what has changed and why it matters.
1. Why are DPRs vital for highway projects?
A detailed project report is effectively the blueprint for developing a highway project. It brings together surveys and investigations, traffic studies, alignment decisions, engineering designs, land and environmental requirements, cost estimates, construction plans and other statutory approvals.
The quality of this preparatory work determines how smoothly a project can move from planning to construction. Errors or gaps at the DPR stage can surface later as changes in alignment, additional land requirements, design modifications, cost escalation or contractual disputes.
This makes the consultant preparing the DPR an important link in the highway construction chain. For the government, therefore, the consultant’s past performance is an important indicator of its ability to prepare technically sound and implementable projects.
MoRTH introduced its DPR consultant rating framework in September 2025, creating a performance database based on completed assignments and prescribed evaluation parameters. The system is intended to provide a more objective assessment of consultants rather than relying only on technical qualifications and financial bids.
2. Why do poor DPRs delay highway projects?
Several problems that emerge during construction can originate much earlier, at the project-preparation stage. Inadequate surveys, incomplete investigations, errors in engineering design, inaccurate cost estimates or insufficient coordination among different components can require changes after construction has begun.
These changes can result in delays, cost overruns and disputes between contractors and implementing agencies. Poor project preparation can also make projects less attractive to bidders, affecting the pace at which projects are awarded.
MoRTH has cited poor-quality DPRs as one of the reasons behind delays in highway construction and weaker project awards. Highway awards fell from 12,376 km in 2022-23 to about 7,538 km in FY25 and around 7,000 km in FY26, a seven-year low. Construction also moderated from 12,349 km in 2023-24 to 10,660 km in FY25 and about 9,380 km in FY26. The number of projects delayed by more than 3 years reached 154 as of March 2024. Though it has come down to around 80 as of March 2026, the delayed projects reflect the poor quality of DPRs.
3. What has changed in the consultant-rating framework?
The key change is that the ministry will now link a consultant’s rating more closely to the level of responsibility it actually assumed on a project.
Earlier, lead consultants, joint-venture partners and associate firms could receive the same project rating despite undertaking very different scopes of work. Under the revised framework, an associate partner will receive 75% of the rating awarded to the lead consultant or JV partner.
The ratings of associate firms will also be published separately, while JV partners will continue to receive the full project rating.
The objective is to distinguish between a firm responsible for the entire DPR and one undertaking only a limited portion of the assignment. A lead consultant may be responsible for integrating surveys, alignment, engineering, approvals, cost estimates and final deliverables, while an associate could handle only one component.
EY India’s Shailesh Agarwal described the change as a move towards linking ratings with actual responsibility, while Chaitanya Projects Consultancy’s Sanjay Kumar Sinha called it a sensible correction that better reflects the realities of infrastructure consultancy.
4. Why is MoRTH making this change now?
The earlier system had a structural weakness: a firm could receive the same performance recognition as the lead consultant even when its role and accountability were considerably smaller.
That could dilute the usefulness of the rating database. If ratings are increasingly used as a differentiator in consultant selection, they need to provide a credible picture of a firm’s track record.
The new approach also seeks to change incentives within the consultancy industry. Firms may no longer be able to build strong credentials primarily through association with highly rated lead consultants. Instead, they will have a greater incentive to develop their own technical capabilities and take greater responsibility.
The 75% weighting for associates recognises their technical contribution while acknowledging that overall contractual responsibility lies with the lead consultant.
5. Will the new ratings system improve highway quality?
The broader objective is to make accountability travel backwards through the project-development chain. If consultants know that the quality of their DPRs will affect their future ratings and bidding prospects, they have a stronger incentive to ensure that surveys, investigations, designs, cost estimates and coordination are thoroughly reviewed before a project reaches construction.
Lead consultants, in particular, would have a greater incentive to exercise quality control over their associates because their own ratings will ultimately reflect the performance of the assignments they lead.
The rating framework is therefore not simply an administrative exercise. It is an attempt to create a long-term performance database for highway consultants and use that information to improve project preparation.
If implemented effectively, the system could help MoRTH identify consistently performing consultants, reduce the scope for weak project preparation and improve the quality of the highway pipeline. The larger test, however, will be whether better consultant ratings eventually translate into fewer design changes, lower cost overruns and faster execution on the ground.
6. Will competition among consultants change?
The biggest impact could be on the way firms build their credentials. Lead consultants and JV partners who have demonstrated the ability to deliver complete DPR assignments are likely to have a stronger competitive advantage.
Smaller firms that traditionally participated mainly as associates could face a tougher environment. Their ratings may not rise as quickly if they remain confined to limited assignments. At the same time, the change could encourage such firms to invest in technical staff, systems and capabilities so they can independently bid for projects or take the lead in joint ventures.
As Chaitanya Projects Consultancy’s Sinha puts it, the emphasis is shifting from “who you associate with” to “what you can independently deliver”.
This could create a more performance-driven consultancy market, with firms competing not merely on price or credentials but on demonstrable project-delivery capability.