Field notes
Five attachments committees quietly expect
12 March 2026 · Hanae Okada
A complete application form is necessary and rarely sufficient. Across the packets we audit in Tokyo, five attachments appear again and again in successful files — and their absence explains many returns.
1. Comparative quotes on the same basis
Three quotes help only when currency, Incoterms, and scope lines match. If one vendor quotes CIF and another ex-works, the committee cannot compare without a normalisation note. Write that note yourself; do not leave the arithmetic to the chair.
2. Budget line evidence
A screenshot or extract showing the cost centre and remaining authority for the year. Verbal assurance that “budget exists” is the first thing controllers challenge.
3. Single-source justification, when used
If you skipped competition, say why in a short signed note: proprietary parts, emergency continuity, or a framework already competed. Empty silence reads as avoidance.
4. Risk and safety sign-off for equipment
Plant or facilities purchases often need a named safety reviewer. An unsigned risk annex is treated as missing.
5. Prior committee minutes, if this is a re-submission
When a file returns, attach the prior questions and your answers. Reviewers should not hunt through email.
None of these replace a clear business case. They simply stop the packet from failing on housekeeping before the merits are heard.