Method and limitations

Endpoints that returned nothing are listed on purpose. An empty procurement feed is evidence about the feed, not evidence that no contracts were awarded, and collapsing the two would be the single most misleading thing this site could do.

Two documents, two different extraction problems

The FY2023-24 annual report has a full text layer, so every value taken from it was machine verified: the exact printed string was asserted to occur on the page cited. 157 records were checked that way and 0 failed.

The FY2024-25 financial statement tables are vector outlined artwork with no text layer at all, so they cannot be read by a parser. Those figures were transcribed from renders of the cited pages at 190 to 200 dots per inch, then validated two ways: every subtotal was re-summed from its own components, and the headline profit and loss was matched against the Board's Report summary table on page 19, which does carry text. 12 arithmetic cross checks were run and 0 failed. Records carry an extraction flag so that provenance stays visible.

Contract records were taken from the Project Facts pages and the notes to the financial statements of the FY2024-25 report, from the corresponding note in the FY2023-24 report, and from the live DICDL tender page. One record, the Service Area Building, comes from a single trade article and is tagged REPORTED everywhere it appears.

Derived values, and there are only three

• Mobilisation days, construction start date minus award date. Both dates are printed in the annual report. Six records support it.
• Days since award, the site build date of 2026-08-04 minus the printed award date.
• Days remaining on an open tender, the printed last date of submission minus the site build date.

Nothing else on the site is computed. Totals are sums of figures that are already published, and each one states how many records it covers. The ABCD Building crore figure is an arithmetic conversion of the printed rupee amount at one crore equals ten million, and the original string is kept beside it.

Dholera Industrial City Development Limited (DICDL)

Source: DICDL 9th Annual Report 2024-25 (audited, signed 2025-08-22) and DICDL 8th Annual Report 2023-24 (audited, signed 2024-09-09). Tag: OFFICIAL. This site is not affiliated with DICDL, DSIRDA, NICDC or any government body, and holds no commercial interest in any firm named on it.

Seventeen holes, printed in full

• CONTRACT GAP 01tender_id is NULL on every single record. No source opened - DICDL Annual Report 2024-25, Annual Report 2023-24, the nProcure portal captures, the NICDC tender listing or the DICDL live tender page - publishes a tender reference number against any award. The award table cannot be joined to tender notice numbers from these sources.
• CONTRACT GAP 02estimated_value (pre-bid estimated contract value / ECV) is NULL on every record. No source discloses an estimate alongside an award, so bid-vs-estimate variance cannot be computed. The DICDL live tender page explicitly shows no estimated values at all.
• CONTRACT GAP 03completion_period is NULL for all 10 awarded contracts from government sources. The annual report gives construction START dates but never a contract duration or scheduled completion date. The only completion period in the dataset (545 days) is on the REPORTED Nila Infrastructures record.
• CONTRACT GAP 04awarded_value vs contract price: for the six 'Project Facts' construction awards the annual report states a 'total project cost' / 'project cost', which is not explicitly labelled as the contract award amount. Only the ABCD Building record (72,31,11,111/-) is printed as an explicit 'contract amount'.
• CONTRACT GAP 05No award value at all is disclosed for the terminated SPML Infra water treatment plant contract, in either the FY2024-25 or the FY2023-24 annual report. Left null rather than back-solved from the bank guarantee amounts.
• CONTRACT GAP 06awarded_data.json (clientid 30 = Dholera Industrial City Development Ltd) and awarded_all.json (clientid null = all clients) both returned recordsTotal 0, iTotalRecords 0 and an empty data array. Because the all-clients query ALSO returned zero, this is evidence the nProcure awarded-tender capture failed or requires parameters the capture did not supply. It is NOT evidence that DICDL has no awarded tenders. No award rows could be recovered from these files.
• CONTRACT GAP 07awarded.html is only the blank nProcure 'Awarded Tenders' SEARCH FORM (title eProc-Suite), with one table containing zero rows; results load by AJAX. dicdl_portal.html is the DICDL nProcure landing page and shows '0 Active Tenders / 0 Tenders Opening Today / 0 Tenders Closing Today' with an empty results table. Neither contains a single award record.
• CONTRACT GAP 08page.html is a Next.js '404: This page could not be found' error page and contains no tender data whatsoever.
• CONTRACT GAP 09tendernotice74.pdf is NOT PRESENT in the _source-artifacts directory. It could not be parsed.
• CONTRACT GAP 10nicdc_tenders.html (NICDC tender listing) renders its table as literally 'No Data'. The NICDC listing contributed zero award records.
• CONTRACT GAP 11The NICDC/DPIIT Delivery Monitoring Unit reports (dmu-*.pdf, dpiit-nicdc-2025-11.pdf) DO name EPC contractors with LoA dates - but only for other corridor nodes (Khurpia, Dighi, Rajpura Patiala, Gaya, Kopparthy, Orvakal). For Dholera they state only that trunk infrastructure works are complete and that GoI approved packages of Rs. 2,784.83 Crore across five packages. They name NO Dholera contractor and give NO Dholera per-package award value. Those non-Dholera contractors were deliberately excluded.
• CONTRACT GAP 12The five GoI-approved Dholera infrastructure packages totalling Rs. 2,784.83 Crore are referenced in dicdl_ar25.pdf p.20 and in the DMU reports, but NO source opened breaks that total down into individual packages with contractor names, per-package values or award dates. The package-level award table does not exist in these sources.
• CONTRACT GAP 13Live portal access was incomplete: dicdl.nprocure.com and www.nprocure.com both failed with 'Socket is closed', and dicdltender.nprocure.com failed TLS validation ('unable to verify the first certificate'). The nProcure awarded-tender results could not be retrieved live. eprocure.gov.in confirms an AOC ('Result of Tenders') section exists but it is POST-driven search and could not be queried without a browser session; DICDL in any case procures through Gujarat's nProcure, not CPPP.
• CONTRACT GAP 14A widely circulated claim that L&T holds an INR 1,734 crore EPC contract for roads and services at Dholera was DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED. It appears only on Dholera property-marketing sites. The one trade-press article opened (indianinfrastructure.com) describes L&T's Dholera scope as utility works over 57 sq km and a 174.25 km highway network but explicitly does NOT disclose a contract value, award date or client. No primary source was found, so no L&T record was emitted.
• CONTRACT GAP 15The Nila Infrastructures Rs. 46.21 Cr record is REPORTED only and is not corroborated by any DICDL document. nila.pdf in the source artifacts is Nila Infrastructures' FY2022-23 annual report; it mentions Dholera only as a general market opportunity and does NOT contain this award. Its award date is unknown (only an announcement date is reported) and its scope description conflicts with DICDL's own ABCD Building award.
• CONTRACT GAP 16Commercial tender aggregator sites (tendersontime, tenderdetail, nationaltenders, bidassist) surfaced in search were not used as sources. They are paywalled resellers whose figures cannot be verified against a primary document.
• CONTRACT GAP 17No award record in this dataset carries a currency other than INR, and no record required a foreign-exchange conversion.

Eleven gaps

• FINANCE GAP 01Per-allottee land area is NOT disclosed in either report. Both give only a cumulative total (530 acres at 2025-03-31, 522 acres at 2024-03-31) against a named but explicitly non-exhaustive list of allottees. No acreage or price can be attributed to Tata Semiconductor, Renew Photovoltaics, Polycab, Inox Air Products or Tata Chemicals.
• FINANCE GAP 02Per-allottee consideration is NOT disclosed, with one exception: the FY2023-24 report discloses a 13,646.74 lakh GSEM land-allotment subsidy receivable relating to the allotment made to Semifab Private Limited (AR_FY2023-24.pdf p112). No other allottee has a monetary figure attached.
• FINANCE GAP 03Land price per acre / per sq m is NOT disclosed in either report. The FY2023-24 report states only that land was allotted to anchor tenants 'at discounted rate' (AR_FY2023-24.pdf p117) and does not quantify the discount or the rate.
• FINANCE GAP 04Land monetised DURING each financial year (as an area figure) is NOT stated. Both reports give cumulative allotted acreage only. The 530 minus 522 difference is not presented by the source as a year's allotment and has not been computed here.
• FINANCE GAP 05Project-wise physical progress percentages for DICDL's own eight social infrastructure projects are NOT disclosed. The FY2024-25 report gives contractor, award date, cost, areas and construction start date, and describes each as 'currently underway', but publishes no percentage completion. Only the Ahmedabad-Dholera Expressway (an NHAI project, not DICDL's) carries a percentage figure.
• FINANCE GAP 06Dholera International Airport physical progress percentage is NOT disclosed in either report; only target dates are given.
• FINANCE GAP 07Total project cost of the Tent City is NOT disclosed. The report gives only the 1.55 crore management fee receivable by DICDL under the PPP arrangement.
• FINANCE GAP 08The FY2022-23 figures in this dataset are taken from the comparative columns of the FY2023-24 annual report, not from the FY2022-23 annual report itself, which was not supplied.
• FINANCE GAP 09The FY2024-25 cash flow statement (dicdl_ar25.pdf p69) exists in the source but has not been transcribed into this dataset; it was outside the requested field list.
• FINANCE GAP 10Segment-level or project-level revenue attribution is NOT available. Note 33 states the company reports a single segment, 'Development of industrial and residential township'.
• FINANCE GAP 11DICDL employee headcount is NOT disclosed in either report.

Nine caveats carried from the source

• CAVEAT 01All FY2024-25 financial-statement tables in dicdl_ar25.pdf are vector-outlined artwork with no extractable text layer, so those figures were transcribed from 190-200 dpi renders of the cited pages. Each transcription was then validated two ways: every subtotal was re-summed from its own components, and the headline P&L figures were matched character-for-character against the Board's Report summary table on p19, which does have a text layer. All checks passed. Records carry extraction='vector_render' so this provenance is visible downstream.
• CAVEAT 02The two reports disagree on the Ahmedabad-Dholera Expressway lane count: the FY2023-24 report calls it a 6-lane Greenfield Expressway (p19); the FY2024-25 report calls it '110 km, 4-lane' (p21). Both statements are recorded as written. Neither has been corrected or reconciled.
• CAVEAT 03The expressway completion target moved between reports: January 2025 (FY2023-24 report) to end of 2025 (FY2024-25 report). Both are stored, each tagged TARGET against its own source year.
• CAVEAT 04The FY2024-25 report restates two FY2023-24 comparatives under its Note 43 reclassification: employee benefit expenses 465.41 becomes 466.34 and other expenses 1,121.46 becomes 1,120.53. The dataset keeps the original figure from each report rather than picking a winner.
• CAVEAT 05Source-document inconsistency, left uncorrected: Note 44 (dicdl_ar25.pdf p111) lists land development cost sub-lines for FY2023-24 that differ from Note 10 (p86) for the same items (Roads & Services 1,88,346.61 vs 1,58,497.79), and its own FY2023-24 column does not sum to the total it prints. The dataset uses the Note 10 figures, which tie to the balance sheet and sum correctly. The variance is flagged, not silently resolved.
• CAVEAT 06The FY2024-25 board composition table (p30) prints names, designations and DINs as three parallel columns, and DIN 09403694 appears against Shri Ashokkumar Khandubhai Patel elsewhere in the same report. Director records for FY2024-25 carry a note that the DIN-to-name mapping on that table is not fully reliable. Names and designations are as printed.
• CAVEAT 07Rupee figures are in lakh unless the unit field says otherwise; the reports print land and infrastructure headline values in crore, and those are stored in crore as printed rather than converted. Paid-up share capital is the one converted value (Rs. 56,83,32,65,310 as printed, stored as 5683.326531 crore) and the original is kept in the note.
• CAVEAT 08The FY2024-25 named-allottee list drops M/s TATA Chemicals Limited, which the FY2023-24 report named. The source gives no explanation. Both lists are stored against their own year; no inference has been drawn about whether that allotment lapsed.
• CAVEAT 09The eight social infrastructure projects include award and construction-start dates falling after 2025-03-31 (up to 2025-06-13), reported as post-balance-sheet activity in the FY2024-25 Board's Report. They are tagged OFFICIAL because they are statements of fact in an audited annual report, not forward targets.

How to get a row changed

Send the document, the page number and the correct value to corrections@dholerasir.net. A correction backed by a published document will be made and logged on the revision sheet with the date and the reason. A correction that cannot be tied to a document will not be made, including one that comes from the party named in the row, because this is a record of what was published rather than a record of what anyone would prefer to have published.

The underlying data is downloadable as JSON and CSV from the data sheet under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence, so a disagreement can be settled against the file rather than against the page.