The district did not keep a copy of the delivery documentation for materials, so it cannot prove the materials were actually delivered.

Purchased equipment did not have a property receipt documenting who received and is responsible for it.

Fuel was purchased without a travel order, so there was no documentation showing the travel or use was officially authorized.

A construction contract was paid without the full set of bidding and contract documents that define the project scope, schedule, quality controls, and award process.

Suppliers were paid without documented proof that they had completed a similar contract in the past, which is needed to confirm their qualifications.

The district could not show proof that the required public advertisement for the procurements was actually posted.

The summary of price quotations was missing the BAC Vice Chairman's signature, so the quotation evaluation was not fully certified.

The required number of vendors did not sign the price quotation invitations, which undermines the completeness and fairness of the competitive quotation process.

Fuel bills were paid without the required approving officer's signature on the statement of account, so the payment documentation was incomplete.

Payment documents were processed without the required approving signatures, so there was no assurance that the proper officials authorized the payments.

After deliveries were accepted, the district did not notify inspectors within the required 24-hour period, reducing the reliability of the inspection process.

Payments were made without the required reports demonstrating that goods and services were inspected, received, and accepted.