GeM mandates a certain percentage of government procurement from Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) as per government policy, typically 25% of the total annual procurement of goods and services. For direct purchases, government departments can procure goods and services up to ₹25,000 without a full bidding process. These provisions are frequently tested in Prelims because they represent concrete, quantifiable policy directives that reflect GeM's dual objectives: promoting efficiency (direct purchase for low value) and inclusive growth (MSME mandate). Examiners use these specific numbers and percentages to test an aspirant's detailed knowledge of government schemes.

While GeM is robust for standardized goods and services, it faces limitations in highly specialized or complex procurements. For instance, large-scale infrastructure projects, defense equipment, or highly customized consulting services often involve intricate negotiations, long-term contracts, and specific technical evaluations that a marketplace model struggles to accommodate. Critics point out that GeM's focus on price-driven competition might sometimes compromise quality for highly technical items or services where vendor reputation and expertise are paramount. Additionally, internet penetration and digital literacy in remote areas can be a practical barrier for some potential sellers and buyers.

Key criticisms regarding GeM's implementation include: resistance from traditional procurement departments due to inertia or lack of digital literacy; challenges in onboarding and training a diverse range of vendors, especially smaller ones; issues with quality control and after-sales service for certain products, as the platform primarily focuses on price; and occasional instances of 'cartelization' or limited competition for niche products. To strengthen GeM, India could focus on: enhancing vendor rating and feedback mechanisms to prioritize quality alongside price; providing more robust training and support for buyers and sellers, especially in Tier-2/3 cities; expanding the catalog to include more complex services while developing specialized modules for them; and integrating GeM more seamlessly with state government procurement systems to ensure wider adoption.

GeM primarily operates under the overarching framework of the General Financial Rules (GFRs), 2017. These rules govern financial management in the Central Government, ensuring prudence, economy, and accountability in public expenditure. GeM aligns with these principles by providing a transparent, auditable, and competitive platform for procurement. All transactions on GeM are recorded digitally, which facilitates easier auditing and ensures accountability, directly supporting the GFRs' objective of preventing financial mismanagement and promoting efficient utilization of public funds. It also aligns with policies promoting MSMEs, which are often integrated into GFRs-mandated procurement policies.

GeM mandates a certain percentage of government procurement from Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) as per government policy, typically 25% of the total annual procurement of goods and services. For direct purchases, government departments can procure goods and services up to ₹25,000 without a full bidding process. These provisions are frequently tested in Prelims because they represent concrete, quantifiable policy directives that reflect GeM's dual objectives: promoting efficiency (direct purchase for low value) and inclusive growth (MSME mandate). Examiners use these specific numbers and percentages to test an aspirant's detailed knowledge of government schemes.

While GeM is robust for standardized goods and services, it faces limitations in highly specialized or complex procurements. For instance, large-scale infrastructure projects, defense equipment, or highly customized consulting services often involve intricate negotiations, long-term contracts, and specific technical evaluations that a marketplace model struggles to accommodate. Critics point out that GeM's focus on price-driven competition might sometimes compromise quality for highly technical items or services where vendor reputation and expertise are paramount. Additionally, internet penetration and digital literacy in remote areas can be a practical barrier for some potential sellers and buyers.

Key criticisms regarding GeM's implementation include: resistance from traditional procurement departments due to inertia or lack of digital literacy; challenges in onboarding and training a diverse range of vendors, especially smaller ones; issues with quality control and after-sales service for certain products, as the platform primarily focuses on price; and occasional instances of 'cartelization' or limited competition for niche products. To strengthen GeM, India could focus on: enhancing vendor rating and feedback mechanisms to prioritize quality alongside price; providing more robust training and support for buyers and sellers, especially in Tier-2/3 cities; expanding the catalog to include more complex services while developing specialized modules for them; and integrating GeM more seamlessly with state government procurement systems to ensure wider adoption.

GeM primarily operates under the overarching framework of the General Financial Rules (GFRs), 2017. These rules govern financial management in the Central Government, ensuring prudence, economy, and accountability in public expenditure. GeM aligns with these principles by providing a transparent, auditable, and competitive platform for procurement. All transactions on GeM are recorded digitally, which facilitates easier auditing and ensures accountability, directly supporting the GFRs' objective of preventing financial mismanagement and promoting efficient utilization of public funds. It also aligns with policies promoting MSMEs, which are often integrated into GFRs-mandated procurement policies.