Two Quotes, One Subsidy and a Request to Inflate the Invoice
Ravi is a newly empanelled drip dealer. A small farmer with 1.5 ha of acid lime wants a system under a state micro-irrigation scheme that pays 55% of the normative cost of ₹85,000 per hectare; any amount above the norm is paid entirely by the farmer. Ravi has two quotes. Quote A is ₹1,46,000 with pressure-compensating emitters, 16 mm laterals, sand plus screen filters, commissioning, training and a two-year service contract. Quote B is ₹1,19,000 with non-compensating emitters, 12 mm laterals, a single screen filter and no after-sales visit. The farmer's brother-in-law supplies the components in Quote B. The farmer asks Ravi to 'write the invoice so that everything is covered', and to promise a 40% yield increase. He also complains that the scheme wants geo-tagged photographs at a time when the crop is already planted.
1. Compute the subsidy and the farmer's share under each quote, and advise which to choose with a reasoned justification.
Read the worked answer
Normative cost: 1.5 ha × ₹85,000 = ₹1,27,500. Subsidy at 55%: ₹70,125 (paid against the norm, not against a higher quote).
| Quote A | Quote B | |
|---|---|---|
| Quote | ₹1,46,000 | ₹1,19,000 |
| Subsidy | ₹70,125 | ₹70,125 |
| Farmer pays | ₹75,875 | ₹48,875 |
The cash gap is ₹27,000. Against that, Quote A delivers pressure-compensating emitters (which hold uniformity on a 1.5 ha block and through the filter-loading pressure swings that a canal/scheme water source brings), larger laterals with lower velocity and friction, a media filter able to hold the silt load, and two years of service. Quote B's single screen, 12 mm laterals and non-compensating emitters are the combination that produces the classic second-season complaint: uneven growth, blocked emitters, no one to call.
Advice: recommend A, and say plainly why - over an 8–10 year life the ₹27,000 is ₹2,700–3,400 per year, less than the cost of one rehabilitation visit plus lost production in a single bad block. But present B honestly as the cheaper option with known risks, and let the farmer decide; do not hide the comparison.
2. How should Ravi respond to the request to 'write the invoice so everything is covered' and to promise a 40% yield increase?
Read the worked answer
On the invoice: refuse, clearly and without embarrassment. Inflating or re-describing the invoice so non-scheme items ride on the subsidy is a false claim; it exposes the farmer to recovery of the subsidy with interest, exposes Ravi to de-empanelment and legal action, and is caught easily because scheme verification is geo-tagged, item-wise and often physically inspected. The correct route is a truthful invoice that separates scheme-eligible components from non-eligible ones (pump, borewell, land development), with the farmer's share shown and paid through the recorded channel. Ravi can help the farmer legitimately: check whether the pump or storage is covered under a separate component, and whether any eligible item was omitted.
On the yield promise: do not make it. A 40% yield increase is not something a dealer can guarantee - it depends on water availability, crop management, nutrition and the season. What Ravi can commit to in writing is measurable and verifiable: design discharge and uniformity targets at commissioning, a specified service response time, and the training and maintenance schedule. Promising yield to close a sale is the fastest route to a complaint he cannot defend and to a reputation that ends his empanelment.
3. Prepare the after-sales and training plan, including the safety training the farmer and his worker need, and how Ravi should handle the first-season complaint that pressure has dropped.
Read the worked answer
Commissioning and training (day of handover):
- Demonstrate and have the farmer repeat: filter cleaning and backwash, end-of-line flushing, reading the pressure gauges, and the fertigation sequence (inject early, then flush 20–30 minutes before stopping).
- Leave a one-page schedule in the local language: daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal tasks, with a log sheet.
- Record design values at commissioning - head pressure, emitter discharge at three points, filter ΔP clean - so later complaints can be measured against a baseline.
Safety training: acid and chlorine stored separately in labelled containers; never mixed; add acid to water, never the reverse; goggles, gloves, boots and eyewash water at the head; nobody in the field while chemicals are in the lines.
First-season complaint: visit within the agreed response time, measure before explaining - gauge readings at head and tail, emitter discharge, filter ΔP, and whether flushing has been done. If the cause is operational (blocked filter, no flushing), fix it, retrain, and do not charge - the training failed. If it is a component failure within warranty, replace it. If it is outside scope (power fluctuation, pump, canal silt), say so with the measurements in hand, quote the repair, and log the visit. Never diagnose by phone alone.