Little Napoleons 2.0: When Procurement Turns SMEs Into Punching Bags

Every avoidable rejection is a surcharge on the nation. We traced the receipt

By Malai Hassan Othman | KopiTalk with MHO

A recent online complaint from late August 2025 has sparked new conversations about procurement issues. Small vendors are calling out outdated specs, unchanged purchase orders, and gate rejections that lead to cancelled orders, wasted logistics costs, and unexpected cash flow problems.

The complaint, shared on a local forum and echoed by other vendors, talks about RFQs asking for sizes that aren’t available, unchanged purchase orders, and receiving officers rejecting equivalent items after they were verbally approved at the loading docks.

Earlier reports labelled some of these behaviours as “little Napoleons.” Now, it seems these issues are creeping into procurement workflows, where even minor design flaws can seriously hurt small businesses struggling to manage cash flow.

While these posts don’t prove any systemic wrongdoing, they highlight consistent complaints from vendors that deserve attention from policymakers, auditors, and contracting authorities who oversee fair procurement practices across various departments.

In one example, a 400-gram item stayed on the purchase order even though 500-gram alternatives were available. The supplier claims they received a verbal go-ahead, but the receiver refused delivery, calling it non-compliant.

“We delivered exactly what was discussed, with catalogue pages attached,” said a small supplier who asked to remain anonymous. “But at the gate, a different officer said it wasn’t acceptable and told us to take it back.”

The vendor claims they had to cover transport and restocking costs, and the cancellation only added to their cash flow issues. Several others have shared similar stories, but we haven’t verified identities or documentation yet.

Additional complaints include delayed payments, repeated requests for paperwork, and documents that mysteriously go “missing” in financial systems. Some vendors say they’ve started quoting higher prices or even turning down work to avoid these predictable hassles.

Overall, these accounts seem to point to design failures rather than malice: unclear policies on equivalents, poor communication between issuing and receiving units, and a lack of a single point of contact overseeing the process from quote to receipt.

Without a proper record of accepted substitutions, front-line receivers feel pressured to reject anything that deviates from the purchase order, even if colleagues had previously approved variations. This leads to confusion, added costs, and growing distrust among honest suppliers.

Some vendors suggested solutions like signed acceptance letters for variants, explicit notes on line items, delivery packs with catalogues, and pre-shipment confirmations. Others mentioned that prepayment requests often don’t work, leaving small contractors vulnerable to rejection and cash flow shocks.

It’s worth noting that many officers are professional, communicate well, and expedite receipts. This report isn’t about pointing fingers; it’s about addressing process weaknesses that need attention.

Procurement experts consulted for insights mentioned safeguards used in other places: a formal Equivalents and Variants Rule, pre-shipment Acceptance-of-Variant memos, and system checks that prevent goods from being received without documented approvals when specs differ.

“If a variant is accepted, the system should show it to the receiver during scan-in,” said a senior procurement professional. “If there’s no acceptance in the record, then no delivery should be scheduled.”

Experts also suggest having a single point of contact from RFQ to receipt, with named backups during absences. This would help speed up clarifications and reduce surprises at the loading dock during critical deliveries.

Technology can make a difference, too. Simple features in e-procurement systems - like variant flags, acceptance identifiers, and mobile apps for receiving with photos, timestamps, and signatures - can create audit trails and cut down on avoidable disputes across agencies.

Policy can also spread risk more fairly. When internal errors cause mismatches, a written return-and-restocking cost-sharing agreement can encourage honesty, discourage defensive refusals, and prevent vendors from bearing all the losses.

Many contributors called for a vendor ombudsman channel with clear resolution timelines. A neutral third party could help distinguish between miscommunication and misconduct, protecting both officers and suppliers from unnecessary stand-offs.

The economic impact goes beyond just a few invoices. If small businesses start factoring in extra costs to deal with rejections and delays, competition shrinks, public costs rise, and innovation takes a hit - especially for new entrepreneurs with limited cash flow.

Verification is crucial. Vendors who want to help should keep records of RFQs, quotes, catalogues, variant approvals, purchase orders, delivery rejection notes, cancellation letters, and payment correspondence for independent review.

Agencies can rebuild trust through anonymised transparency: publish dashboards every thirty days showing variant-rejection rates, average decision times for Acceptance-of-Variant requests, payment cycle lengths, and dispute outcomes; then track improvements quarterly against clear targets.

Why does this matter? It’s simple for readers and policymakers.

When vendors raise prices to cover the hassle of rejections and delays, consumers end up paying more for the same goods and services. Less competition and higher quotes become a hidden tax on the nation.

Capable SMEs might pull back from public tenders or avoid them altogether. With fewer reliable bidders, agencies have weaker options, less negotiating power, slower delivery, and diminished innovation when quality and value should be at their best.

Just one gate refusal or purchase-order cancellation can wipe out a month’s runway for a small supplier, triggering layoffs, missed loan payments, cancelled orders, and a reluctance to bid on future projects that could help them grow.

Procurement friction doesn’t just hurt vendors; it delays hospitals, schools, utilities, and municipal services that are waiting on routine items stuck in unnecessary disputes, pushing back maintenance schedules and compromising outcomes that the public expects on time.

When processes feel random, people look for back channels and personal favours. This erodes trust, puts honest officers under suspicion, and teaches businesses that compliance might not save them from unpredictable outcomes.

Predictable, fair procurement is key to economic growth and SME expansion, which is a goal of Wawasan 2035. If contracting seems risky and inconsistent, investment slows down, entrepreneurship suffers, and national productivity slips further from tangible progress.

External investors weigh contract execution risk before putting in capital. If variants get verbally approved but rejected upon delivery, confidence drops; money flows to places where approvals are solid and handovers go smoothly the first time.

Time spent dealing with rejections, resubmitting paperwork, and arguing at loading docks is time not spent improving systems, training staff, and serving the public. Inefficiency builds up while morale dips on both sides.

The stakes are high, but the solutions are simple: clear rules for equivalents, recorded acceptances, a single accountable contact, and basic system checks to prevent surprises at receipt. Small changes can lead to big benefits for the economy.

In the end, the fix is straightforward: clear rules, documented acceptances, single ownership, traceable systems, and professional behaviour. Let’s rein in those little Napoleons with enforceable checks - and allow honest business to thrive again. (MHO/08/2025)