Incomplete evaluation records, criteria applied inconsistently, undated correspondence, unsupported variations and missing delivery evidence. Each one is avoidable at the document-preparation stage, and each one is easier to fix before an audit than after.
Audit findings are rarely a surprise to the people who ran the procurement. They are almost always the predictable consequence of a decision taken months earlier, under time pressure, that nobody wrote down properly.
1. Incomplete evaluation records
The evaluation report states a conclusion but not the working. A bidder was found non-responsive, but the file does not show against which clause. Fix this by recording the finding against the specific ITB or BDS reference at the moment it is made.
2. Criteria applied inconsistently
One bidder is asked for a clarification, another with the same gap is not. The evaluation criteria must be fixed before bids are opened, and applied identically to every bid.
3. Undated correspondence
Clarification requests and responses without dates make it impossible to prove that timelines were respected. Every outgoing and incoming document needs a date and a reference.
4. Unsupported variations
A variation order exists but the justification, the approval and the revised BOQ do not sit alongside it. Variations are where contract files most often fall apart.
5. Missing delivery evidence
Payment was certified but inspection reports, delivery challans or test certificates are absent. If the goods were inspected, the inspection must leave a record.
The common thread
All five are documentation failures, not judgement failures. The evaluation was usually sound; the file simply does not prove it. Build the record as you go, and an audit becomes a reading exercise rather than a reconstruction.