eProcureAI / Solutions / Government contractors
IndustryGovernment contracting does not simply ask you to buy well. It asks you to prove you bought well, months later, in a format somebody else defines. That is a documentation problem as much as a procurement one.
Evidence captured as you buy. Not assembled when somebody asks for it.
Government contractors rarely fail a purchasing review because they bought badly. They fail because they cannot demonstrate how the decision was made.
The buying itself was usually sensible. Somebody got quotes, chose a supplier for defensible reasons, and moved on. What is missing months later is the evidence. Which suppliers were approached, what they said, why one was chosen, and whether the price was reasonable.
Reconstructing that from inboxes is slow, incomplete and unconvincing. An email chain that stops halfway is worse than no record, because it raises a question it cannot answer.
The only reliable approach is to record the decision at the moment it is made. Which suppliers were invited, dated. What each responded. Why the award went where it did, written by the person who decided, at the time they decided.
That costs almost nothing when it is part of the buying flow, and it is nearly impossible to produce afterwards.
Buying without competition is often entirely legitimate. What causes findings is a justification written after somebody asked, which reads exactly like a justification written after somebody asked. Requiring it before the purchase proceeds is a small change with a large effect on how the file reads.
And if not, why not, in a justification written before the purchase rather than afterwards.
Named suppliers with dates, not a recollection that the market was tested.
Responses kept in full rather than summarised into a comparison nobody can verify.
The reasoning written at the decision, by the person who made it.
Evidence of how that was established, which is the question most files answer least well.
Invitations, responses and comparisons recorded at the time rather than reconstructed. The file reads as a record because it is one.
Rather than after somebody asks. The justification is captured at the point of decision, which is both easier and considerably more convincing.
Producing evidence becomes a search and an export rather than weeks of asking people to forward emails and hoping they still have them.
Rules applied by the system rather than by memory, which is what makes the pattern hold across hundreds of purchases.
| Value band | What is required | How it is enforced | What is recorded |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low value | Reasonable price judgement | Catalog with contracted pricing | The contracted rate applied |
| Middle band | Competition where practicable | Rule requires quotes above the threshold | Suppliers invited, responses, comparison |
| Above threshold | Full competition | Sourcing event required before award | Full event record with award reasoning |
| Any value, sole source | Written justification | Required before the purchase proceeds | Justification, approver and date |
The exact bands depend on your contracts. What matters to a reviewer is that they are applied consistently rather than case by case.
Collected through the onboarding form rather than chased by email at award time.
Attached to the order so the supplier accepts them with it rather than separately.
Checked before invitation rather than discovered afterwards.
Tracked to expiry with automatic chasing.
Held immutably with the transaction rather than in a folder somebody maintains.
Recorded in the event so the effort is evidenced, not asserted.
Nothing here asks your buyers to become compliance officers. It asks the system to keep the record they were going to be asked for anyway.
Buy the thing, and answer one extra question when the rules require it.
Applies the threshold rules and keeps the evidence in a shape somebody else can read.
We will walk through what the file would contain if it had been bought on the platform.
Book your free demoRelated: All solutions and Sourcing Events