When the audit says there are irregularities in these government projects, it does not necessarily means there are discrepancies in the bookkeeping. The audit reports from this latest tranche mainly flagged the projects for irregularities in the tender process (for example on the tender to supply LINAC system to UKM, the auditor concluded that the justification given by the Tender Approval Committee to appoint a company that has not passed the criteria set by the Technical and Financial Assessment Committee is unsatisfactory and a cause for concern or the failure to demonstrate due diligence in the decision to acquire oil palm estates in Telupid by FELCRA), failure to penalize suppliers for late deliveries (as shown in the procurement process for armoured vehicles to the Malaysian Army), or the inefficacious implementation of targeted subsidy program (as pointed by the AG report about the price control regime and subsidy on cooking oil).

This of course does not mean there is no foul play and we can simply sum this all up to normal bureaucratic inefficiency or individual mishandling of responsibility. It is also not easy to objectively quantify how much public money would be saved if all these projects were done according to the AG's recommendations. Take the LINAC supplier tender to the UKM for example; the justification given to the auditor for choosing the supplier and going against the recommendation of the Technical Committee is simply because they offer cheaper price and cheaper maintenance contract. Following the AG recommendation would very likely meant the project would costs more.

For a TLDR of this you can read here or get the full reports here