• Person holding a smartphone beside a laptop with digital procurement icons overlaid
Insight

How a quick audit of your procurement documents can highlight risks

Procurement Legal Check-Up: Procurement documents, the ordering process and contractual risks, all covered in a concise audit.

| Reading time 4 min. | Author: Martin Neupert

A quick audit of procurement documents involves reviewing purchasing terms and conditions, framework and supply contracts, quality assurance agreements and ordering processes to assess their effectiveness, inconsistencies and practical applicability. A common weak point lies in the incorporation of these terms, as, in accordance with Sections 305 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB), the terms must be effectively incorporated at the time the specific contract is concluded – a well-drafted text on the intranet alone is not sufficient for this purpose. The findings report prioritises the issues using the colours red, yellow and green, and links each one to a specific action – ranging from more robust incorporation to revised liability and price adjustment rules.

What the Legal Check-Up covers

The focus is on the documents that actually govern day-to-day procurement. These include general terms and conditions of purchase, framework and supply contracts, quality assurance agreements, order forms, order confirmations, as well as provisions relating to warranty, liability, late delivery, contractual penalties, prices, the supply chain, compliance and intellectual property. It is not just a question of whether an individual clause is legally sound. It is equally important to determine whether the documents contradict one another, whether they fit the business model and whether the operational teams can apply them reliably.

A common weak point is the incorporation of the terms and conditions of purchase. Under Sections 305 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB), it is not sufficient simply to publish a legally sound text on the intranet. The terms and conditions must be effectively incorporated at the time the specific contract is concluded. We therefore examine the sequence of the enquiry, purchase order, order confirmation and the supplier’s general terms and conditions, and determine which terms are likely to apply in the event of a so-called ‘battle of forms’. This also applies to individually negotiated framework agreements and subsequent individual purchase orders.

The review also covers the practical management of contracts. If contractual penalties are not reserved, defects are not documented within the specified time limit, or price changes are accepted without the required approval, even the best contract will be rendered ineffective. A brief review of processes reveals whether responsibilities, escalation procedures and documentation are aligned with the contractual situation.

From a set of documents to a prioritised outcome

The scope of the audit is defined at the outset. For an initial stress test, a representative package comprising standard terms and conditions, one or two framework agreements, typical purchase orders and a few completed transactions is usually sufficient. This reveals whether the contractual framework is consistent and where recurring risks may lie. In the case of complex supply chains, quality assurance agreements, supplier codes, tooling contracts or project-specific annexes can also be included.

The results report classifies the findings according to their legal and economic relevance. A red rating indicates a risk that could have an immediate impact in the event of a typical claim. Examples of this include an invalid liability clause, contradictory pricing rules or the failure to incorporate the terms and conditions of purchase. Yellow marks relate to provisions that work in principle but are incomplete, unclear or difficult to implement in practice. Green, on the other hand, does not mean that a document is set in stone, but rather that the provision in question currently appears robust for the specific application under review.

Each finding must be accompanied by a specific action. The report should therefore not merely state that a clause needs to be ‘reviewed’. Rather, it should specify whether a phrase should be replaced, a process amended, a responsibility clarified or a new contract module created. In this way, the review becomes an actionable work plan.

Which ‘quick wins’ actually make a difference

It is often possible to reduce many risks without having to completely overhaul the entire contractual framework. It is often worthwhile, as a first step, to standardise the incorporation of purchasing terms into the ordering process, to resolve conflicting liability and warranty provisions, and to set out clear consequences for late delivery, inadequate documentation or repeated quality deviations. Issues such as place of jurisdiction, choice of law, set-off, retention of title and payment security can also often be consistently organised with a manageable amount of effort.

In the event of price changes, the contract should provide for a transparent mechanism rather than permitting unilateral adjustments at the contracting party’s discretion. Supply chain and compliance clauses should only contain obligations that are appropriate to the contracting party’s own legal scope of application, the specific risk involved and the actual influence over the supplier. The LkSG requires obligated companies to implement appropriate, risk-based measures. However, it does not justify a blanket transfer of all responsibility onto every supplier.

Another quick lever lies in internal implementation. Concise contractual guidelines, approval thresholds and binding escalation procedures prevent the safeguards negotiated in day-to-day business from being lost. The review should therefore recommend new wording and highlight which minor process changes can achieve the greatest impact.

When a quick audit turns into an implementation project

A concise review is particularly suitable for established contract portfolios, new procurement organisations, international group standards or situations where recurring points of dispute arise. It provides a robust basis for decision-making, but does not always replace a complete overhaul. If the review reveals that several documents use different risk models or that ordering processes no longer align with the contract architecture, a phased consolidation is generally more sensible than the isolated revision of individual clauses.

Implementation should be prioritised according to risk and frequency of use. First, those documents that are used on a daily basis or pose a particularly high potential for loss should be amended. These should be followed by specialised contracts and process manuals. At the same time, it should be established who approves changes, how old versions are withdrawn from circulation, and when a further review will take place.

A good legal check-up therefore answers three questions: - Where does the specific risk lie? - How urgent is it? - Which measures can actually be implemented within the organisation? It is only this combination of legal considerations, process and prioritisation that turns a document review into an effective tool for procurement.

About the author

Martin Neupert
Martin Neupert
Partners · Property and Procurement
Get in touch

Martin Neupert advises companies and procurement organisations on all aspects of procurement, supply and distribution law. His services range from supplier structure and contract standards to quality and liability issues within the supply chain.

Aerial view of a cable-stayed bridge over turquoise-coloured water

Check the terms and conditions of purchase for risks?

Maxfeld.legal reviews your procurement documents as part of a quick audit and provides a prioritised ‘traffic light’ report highlighting quick wins.

Get in touch

Frequently asked questions about the Legal Check-up for Procurement

A quick audit of procurement documents using a traffic-light system that highlights and prioritises risks.

In short: Following the review, you will receive a report setting out the results, including prioritised recommendations for action.

In many cases, invalid liability clauses need to be amended; LkSG clauses are missing and need to be added; and clearer rules are required regarding payment security and the place of jurisdiction.

This is ideal for companies with complex or outdated purchasing terms and conditions that wish to quickly identify their risks.

Contact

Get in touch

Send us a message. We will get back to you within one working day.

Maxfeld.legal

Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Leipziger Platz 21
90491 Nuremberg

Brochure

Request brochure

Enter your contact details. We will send you the brochure by email right away.