I have always stated poorly written specifications may force bidders to guess what the customer wants.
Public procurement should not be a guessing game. On the other hand, there are clear risks in being overly specific when drawing up the specifications. Inflating the list of requirements that must be satisfied increases cost, so it was worthwhile to focus on what is truly necessary.
There are essentially two approaches to specification preparation. The first (the problem-solving or statement of objective approach) is to set out a general statement of the purpose or objectives of the procurement exercise. This approach leaves it to the prospective suppliers to determine whether they can address the contracting authority’s declared need.
The second (the detailed specification approach) is for the municipality or other contracting authority to attempt to define the technical requirements of a product that will satisfy the procurement need that it has identified.
Perhaps surprisingly, until very recently, governments have tended to favour the latter approach over the former. In recent years, however, this approach has fallen into disfavour. A number of reasons can be advanced for this change in attitude. First, the detailed specification approach is inconsistent with treaty and other legal requirements for an open competition for government supply contracts.
For specifications relating to the operation of a capital facility, the conduct of a program, or the delivery of a service, performance specifications constitute a further area of concern. The best way to explain the difference between these different categories of specification is by way of example.
Suppose, for instance, that one wished to purchase a car and decided to do so by way of the issue of an RFP.
The function specifications constitute the most elementary aspect of these categories of specification.
They would deal with the following types of questions:
- How fast must the car be capable of moving? (e.g., top speed of 100 mph)
- How fast must the car be able to accelerate? (e.g., 0 to 60 mph in seven seconds)
- Does the car require an automatic transmission or a manual transmission?
- How many gears are required?
- How powerful an engine? (e.g., 250 horsepower minimum)
- How many passengers must the car be able to seat?
- In what radius must the car be able to turn?
- What is the required luggage carrying capacity?
- What type of fuel economy is required (e.g., 25 mpg city, 32 mpg highway)
It follows that the functional specification is a short-itemized list of features. It contains few details, beyond most rudimentary description of the kind of item that is required.
The last point that belongs on the list of functional specifications is essentially a price option. Cars may be built to very different standards. The foregoing description might cover every kind of car from a 138 horsepower Kia Spectra to a 510 horsepower Jaguar XFR. In the auto trade, labels such as “family car,” “entry level,” “executive car,” “luxury,” “station wagon,” “sports car” and so forth each describe a particular class of vehicle, as do such terms as SUV, crossover and the like.
Many other trades, professions and industries have similar terms. A rough-in carpenter and a cabinet maker both work with wood, but each is a very different kind of contractor. Proper usage of labels of this kind serve a very important function in the drawing up of specifications. They indicate to suppliers the general kind of thing that customer wishes to buy.
The functional specification reduces a broad range of possible solutions into a fairly wide range of maybes. The design specifications are intended to further limit the scope of the list. The distinction between the overall functional specification and the design specification is one of level.
