A popular page exposed six sports fields in Songkhla province where the winning bids were only 10,000 baht below the median price, raising questions about transparency in the process.
On 12 Jan 2026 GMT+7, following the controversy over the Padang Besar Municipality sports field in Sadao District, Songkhla, which has a bent running track and cost about 6.9 million baht, a social media drama unfolded. The track was built for exercise but cannot be used for competitions.
However, the "Must Expose" page posted a follow-up about the bent running track related to the bidding competition, noting that the winning bid was only about 10,000 baht below the median price.
The continuation: "Bent (running) track" and the suspicious pattern in the bidding competition?!
Regarding the sports field construction project in Sadao District, Songkhla, closely watched after the discovery of the "bent (running) track," which is a synthetic rubber track at least 15 mm thick (IAAF standard) valued at 6.9 million baht. It was explained as just a "bonus" in a project with a total budget over 35 million baht. This issue raised social questions about the design's suitability, necessity, and usage of such a pathway, as well as the budget's origin. It was clarified that the track around the field is just an addition for public exercise, with the main goal to build a football stadium meeting international standards suitable for competitions. Additionally, the project used the "standard blueprint from Songkhla Provincial Administrative Organization." The issue seems far from over!
Combined with information citizens checked on the e-GP system, immediate questions arose: for a 35 million baht project using a standard blueprint, the winning bid was only 10,000 baht below the median price, about a 0.03% budget saving. Is such a close-to-median bid normal for fair government procurement bidding?
The "Must Expose" page extended citizens' observations by reviewing e-GP data and found that between 2022 and 2024 there were six similar sports field construction projects in Songkhla using Songkhla Provincial Administrative Organization's blueprints, totaling contracts over 190,070,000 baht (more details in comments). Examining the procurement processes of these six projects revealed notable observations:
All six projects used electronic bidding (e-bidding) with multiple bidders, but at evaluation only 3–4 bidders typically passed the qualification stage.
The names of qualified bidders and price proposers are often the same recurring companies across all six projects.
The bidding pattern is similar: one bidder usually offers the lowest price but never wins, while two other bidders submit prices differing by only about 10,000 baht.
All six projects had the same winner each time.
Four projects during 2023–2024 had winners bidding only tens of thousands of baht below the median price, approximately 0.03%.
Looking at the data, questions extend beyond the sports field design or project management planning to whether these procurement processes truly allow fair competition and whether the terms of reference (TOR) include conditions that might exclude many bidders, leaving only a few recurring competitors. These are only observations based on public data and citizens' questions. "Must Expose" invites the public and relevant authorities to review the TOR and procurement processes of such projects to check if any conditions limit competition and whether such bidding patterns warrant deeper investigation or monitoring of public budget use. #BentRunningTrack