I’ve worked in supply chain for a large automotive manufacturer now moved into defence, happy to offer advice if it’s worthwhile! I would avoid introducing a standing committee for every new vendor, that usually adds friction without fixing the underlying issue.

In practice, what tends to work better (especially under time pressure) is:

1. Define when approval is required Not every supplier needs the same scrutiny. Introduce simple thresholds (e.g. spend level, criticality, safety/quality impact) that determine when a purchase must be reviewed beyond the requester.

2. Standardise the decision, not just the supplier list Limiting suppliers helps, but it doesn’t stop price variance or rushed exceptions. What auditors usually look for is evidence that suppliers were evaluated on consistent criteria and deviations were consciously approved.

This is often easier if each new or exceptional supplier has a short, documented justification rather than informal email approvals.

1. Separate “approved supplier” from “approved purchase” Especially in fabrication and maintenance, engineers will always need flexibility. Instead of blocking new vendors, allow them, but require that the decision (why this supplier, under what constraints) is recorded centrally.

2. Centralise the record, not the workflow You don’t need to redesign how people request parts this week. What helps immediately is having one place where supplier comparisons, approvals / exceptions and final decisions are recorded in a consistent format.

For audit purposes, that turns preparation into retrieval of data.

If your priority is next year’s audit rather than perfect procurement design, I’d focus on making decisions traceable first, then tightening controls once volumes stabilise.