Open this link on a larger screen to see the verification queue.
1 works across 1 implementing agency, recommended by 1 member of parliament. No allocation figure is published per district — every rupee below is summed from the works themselves.
The people a district authority actually supervises. Vendor concentration is counted from the payment records: an agency paying almost everything to one vendor is worth a question, not an accusation.
| # | Agency | Works | Completed | Sanctioned | To verify | Avg score | Top vendor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | VIKARABAD(DISTRICT COLLECTOR VIKARABAD_2) | 1 | 0 | ₹25.00 L | 1 | 63.0 | KOMU VIKRAM REDDY 12% of spend · 52 vendors |
Whose funds paid for this district’s works.
| Member | Works | Sanctioned | To verify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ryaga Krishnaiah Sitting Rajya Sabha | 1 | ₹25.00 L | 1 |
Sector read from each work’s description.
| Sector | Works | Sanctioned | To verify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Buildings | 1 | ₹25.00 L | 1 |
Patterns across an agency’s whole book of work. None of these move any individual work’s score.
The whole population fails the textbook test — the median agency scores 6.2 where Nigrini calls 1.5 nonconformant — because MPLADS amounts are capped, rounded and repeated by design. This ranks agencies against each other, not against the law. It is the weakest signal here and is never evidence on its own.
Ranked by score. Cost is judged against comparable works in this district and sector, so a high cost score means unlike its neighbours — not overpriced.
| Work | Agency | Status | Sanctioned | Delay | Cost vs peers | Score | Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of Community hall at Rallagudepally Villagae, M ₹2,500,000 against a ₹500,000 median for Community Buildings works in VIKARABAD (400% above, 10 peer works) | VIKARABAD(DISTRICT COLLECTOR VIKARABAD_2) | Recommended | ₹25.00 L | 107 d | +400% | 63.0 | MEDIUM |